[PASSED] Protecting Press Freedoms

[Tinhampton]

Article 3 would appear to allow member states to require news outlets to age-gate certain news stories. I have never seen any news outlet, ever, do this; "this story may upset certain readers due to XYZ" typically works just fine.

Given the reinclusion of these provisions as Article 4, I must once again affirm my opposition to this draft.

[Bananaistan]

Article 3 would appear to allow member states to require news outlets to age-gate certain news stories. I have never seen any news outlet, ever, do this; "this story may upset certain readers due to XYZ" typically works just fine.

Given the reinclusion of these provisions as Article 4, I must once again affirm my opposition to this draft.

"Considering that a news organisation's secondary goal might be the generation of inappropriate materials, the age clause is not unreasonable.

"However, Bananaistan is opposed. The prevention of publication of official secrets should not be left to some nebulous as yet unpublished and unpassed future WA resolution.

"Also, we recommend that the authors review GAR#436. The list of exceptions here is substantially different, particularly this issue regarding "the seal of a court of law", whatever that is when it's at home, and the definition of libel. It is my understanding that the assembly cannot widen the right to free expression beyond that stated in GAR#436 under its terms. It can only further restrict it. This here seeks to widen it.

"Ofc we pointed out this issue during the ill-conceived haste to repeal the old law on the topic but people did not listen."

[Hulldom]

Given the reinclusion of these provisions as Article 4, I must once again affirm my opposition to this draft.

"Considering that a news organisation's secondary goal might be the generation of inappropriate materials, the age clause is not unreasonable.

"However, Bananaistan is opposed. The prevention of publication of official secrets should not be left to some nebulous as yet unpublished and unpassed future WA resolution.

"Also, we recommend that the authors review GAR#436. The list of exceptions here is substantially different, particularly this issue regarding "the seal of a court of law", whatever that is when it's at home, and the definition of libel. It is my understanding that the assembly cannot widen the right to free expression beyond that stated in GAR#436 under its terms. It can only further restrict it. This here seeks to widen it.

"Ofc we pointed out this issue during the ill-conceived haste to repeal the old law on the topic but people did not listen."

"Well, I'm not too worried about it. In the end, we were bound to get it right anyways."

"Let's see if Clause 2, and its knock-on effects, are good with the Delegation from Bananaistan now."

[Bananaistan]

"Let's see if Clause 2, and its knock-on effects, are good with the Delegation from Bananaistan now."

"It is not.

"Were the prior WA law ever repealed, no restriction of expression on journalists would ever be permitted.

"Also 3a and 3b do nothing now that section 2 does nothing."

[Hulldom]

"Let's see if Clause 2, and its knock-on effects, are good with the Delegation from Bananaistan now."

"It is not.

"Were the prior WA law ever repealed, no restriction of expression on journalists would ever be permitted.

"Also 3a and 3b do nothing now that section 2 does nothing."

"I didn't even think about the passive construction of that clause when writing it, Ambassador Hornwood."

[Simone Republic]

Separate topic: for clause 1, please don't tie "news" to "current events". Too much of an out. The Watergate break-in was 17 June 1972, the "Smoking Gun" tape was 23 June, the first report from Bob Woodward wasn't until October.

This is before I mention the Boston Globe, the 2002 reporting on the Catholic Church, and accusations that date from the 1980s.

I think you're going to end up with either an absolutist stance (First Amendment rights in the US, which is close to absolute) vs a lot of other democracies where national security and a lot of other considerations take precedence over press freedoms.

[Hulldom]

Separate topic: for clause 1, please don't tie "news" to "current events". Too much of an out. The Watergate break-in was 17 June 1972, the "Smoking Gun" tape was 23 June, the first report from Bob Woodward wasn't until October.

This is before I mention the Boston Globe, the 2002 reporting on the Catholic Church, and accusations that date from the 1980s.

I think you're going to end up with either an absolutist stance (First Amendment rights in the US, which is close to absolute) vs a lot of other democracies where national security and a lot of other considerations take precedence over press freedoms.

That tweak in the definition should do it. Notice the "or" there, so it is broader.

[Simone Republic]

Separate topic: for clause 1, please don't tie "news" to "current events". Too much of an out. The Watergate break-in was 17 June 1972, the "Smoking Gun" tape was 23 June, the first report from Bob Woodward wasn't until October.

This is before I mention the Boston Globe, the 2002 reporting on the Catholic Church, and accusations that date from the 1980s.

I think you're going to end up with either an absolutist stance (First Amendment rights in the US, which is close to absolute) vs a lot of other democracies where national security and a lot of other considerations take precedence over press freedoms.

That tweak in the definition should do it. Notice the "or" there, so it is broader.

I think you need to run the phase "or other matters related to public affairs" in both 1(a) and 1(b) to make it clearer. (Yes I have a fairly wordy style but it's not apparent that the "or" phase would also apply to 1(a)).

Let me think about the rest.

[Hulldom]

Bump. I have taken what SR said into consideration and decided to add that bit to 1(a).

[Attempted Socialism]

I will reiterate that with the current definition of journalist, there are no protections for independent journalists, which I think is a shame.

[Hulldom]

I will reiterate that with the current definition of journalist, there are no protections for independent journalists, which I think is a shame.

I removed 'employed by an organization' from the definition so maybe that'll help? I'm open to a complete rewrite of that definition, but I don't necessarily think it's needed if that tweak is acceptable.

On another note: don't want to begrudge anyone their feedback, but my plan is to submit this on September 23. It happens to be the beginning of a very long weekend for me, so I'll have the time to do any behind-the-scenes stuff I need to. (Though hopefully little of it actually is!)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think you're going to end up with either an absolutist stance (First Amendment rights in the US, which is close to absolute) vs a lot of other democracies where national security and a lot of other considerations take precedence over press freedoms.

OOC. I think if you want to publicly publish or otherwise disseminate sensitive, classified, or state secret information in the United States, you are not going to have a good time, whether or not you scream 1st amendment all the way to jail or not.

[Cretox State]

I think you're going to end up with either an absolutist stance (First Amendment rights in the US, which is close to absolute) vs a lot of other democracies where national security and a lot of other considerations take precedence over press freedoms.

OOC. I think if you want to publicly publish or otherwise disseminate sensitive, classified, or state secret information in the United States, you are not going to have a good time, whether or not you scream 1st amendment all the way to jail or not.

OOC: Exceptions may apply, as determined by our Sliding Scale of Justice (trademark pending).

Edit: This resolution's approach may create some issues. Clause 2 would allow members to outright ban reporting on content merely partially restricted by the WA, potentially categorically depending on how that clause is interpreted. It would also require another resolution (whenever that happens, if it ever does) to actually restrict content that shouldn't be published, meaning that members have no power to protect themselves from reporters publishing dangerous information until the WA passes a likely broad and heavy-handed resolution doing it for them. It also only protects reporting on information, not investigating or communicating about certain information to colleagues. Why not set up some exceptions for specific content in this proposal itself?

3a would prevent governments from searching or seizing any materials regarding content not restricted via 2, even if law enforcement has a good reason to search or seize the materials as part of an investigation into a crime. 3b would prevent governments from penalizing reporters for producing content even if that content was produced in an illegal manner. 3c doesn't apply to restrictions established contractually- meaning that a government just has to have journalists and organizations sign a contract saying they'll promote a certain ideology as a condition of operating in that country.

[Hulldom]

Bump. I did notify AS about the definition change to cover independent journalists. Hopefully that works better.

Edit: Goddamnit, Cretox.

[Hulldom]

Well! Grad school kicked my ass more than I thought. Funny how it tends to do that. Anyways, between that and my other NS obligations I haven't had the time or the energy to work on this. I'm rectifying that now.

I've edited this to reflect some very helpful commentary provided by Cretox in Discord DMs prior to him disappearing again and some helpful commentary from Attempted Socialism earlier in the same venue. I hope I've managed to clear up some of the nagging issues and we can move this forward relatively soon.

[Tinhampton]

Article 3 would appear to allow member states to require news outlets to age-gate certain news stories. I have never seen any news outlet, ever, do this; "this story may upset certain readers due to XYZ" typically works just fine.

Given the reinclusion of these provisions as Article 4, I must once again affirm my opposition to this draft.

We go yet again. Still opposed; may be willing to budge if you say that the implementation of age-gates for such stories is optional/at the discretion of the news outlet rather than a mandate for all such stories. (Which is the other reading of that article as it stands.)

[Hulldom]

Given the reinclusion of these provisions as Article 4, I must once again affirm my opposition to this draft.

We go yet again. Still opposed; may be willing to budge if you say that the implementation of age-gates for such stories is optional/at the discretion of the news outlet rather than a mandate for all such stories. (Which is the other reading of that article as it stands.)

That seems eminently reasonable.

Edit: That any better?

[Bananaistan]

"Is there a particular reason why a national content warning system is a bad idea? It would seem sensible that a nation would set an easily understandable system for same instead of each organisation going off doing their own thing."

OOC: GAR#436 remains an issue as far as I can see.

In particular, defamation is typically a civil proceeding. This says no civil proceedings allowed. GAR#436 says defamation can be restricted.

Section 2 here says member states cannot "prevent or unduly restrict". 1) Which is it? If it's just unduly restrict, can member states still utilise section 2f of GAR#436 to prevent the publication of state secrets?

In any case, the definition of public interest does not seem to actually catch what public interest is and is incredibly narrow but would still capture classified information.

Section 3a. In general. How does it tie up with the restrictions permitted in section 2 generally in GAR#436? EG GAR#436 allows for restrictions of different classes of information which this seems to wholly ban.

[Hulldom]

"Is there a particular reason why a national content warning system is a bad idea? It would seem sensible that a nation would set an easily understandable system for same instead of each organisation going off doing their own thing."

OOC: GAR#436 remains an issue as far as I can see.

In particular, defamation is typically a civil proceeding. This says no civil proceedings allowed. GAR#436 says defamation can be restricted.

Section 2 here says member states cannot "prevent or unduly restrict". 1) Which is it? If it's just unduly restrict, can member states still utilise section 2f of GAR#436 to prevent the publication of state secrets?

In any case, the definition of public interest does not seem to actually catch what public interest is and is incredibly narrow but would still capture classified information.

Section 3a. In general. How does it tie up with the restrictions permitted in section 2 generally in GAR#436? EG GAR#436 allows for restrictions of different classes of information which this seems to wholly ban.

Still some stuff to chew on, it would seem. I'd honestly forgotten about 436 in the context here (it's been months since I touched this), but am going to...work this out.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Logged on the wrong nation to say this in IC, but couldn't a nation just decriminalize assault and battery against foreign news crews, or any news crews that violate private citizens' privacy, and still be compliant?

[Hulldom]

OOC: Logged on the wrong nation to say this in IC, but couldn't a nation just decriminalize assault and battery against foreign news crews, or any news crews that violate private citizens' privacy, and still be compliant?

I mean...theoretically they could? I'm not entirely sure how I could address that here, but if you have suggestions, would be happy to hear them.

Re: Banana's point from earlier. If someone has ideas for how to better word the definition of "public interest" (in all honesty, I thought about it for a minute and that's what I came up with), happy to hear it.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Logged on the wrong nation to say this in IC, but couldn't a nation just decriminalize assault and battery against foreign news crews, or any news crews that violate private citizens' privacy, and still be compliant?

I mean...theoretically they could? I'm not entirely sure how I could address that here, but if you have suggestions, would be happy to hear them.

OOC: Oh, no, you misunderstand; I find predatory news reporting awful, and want to find creative compliance ways of making the problem go away. Letting people beat up news crews that came to bother them at their beloved dad's funeral, without legal consequences, would make the news crews keep a respectful distance.

[Ordenstaat Indus]

Fully oppose.

[Wymondham]

'We have added a new definition of 'Public Interest' and are eager to receive feedback on it"

[Tinhampton]

We go yet again. Still opposed; may be willing to budge if you say that the implementation of age-gates for such stories is optional/at the discretion of the news outlet rather than a mandate for all such stories. (Which is the other reading of that article as it stands.)

That seems eminently reasonable.

Edit: That any better?

You still say that members must "not prevent citizens from accessing content created by any journalist or news organization except by implementing age restrictions...". Setting age limits for content should be the responsibility of the content creator, not the government.

'We have added a new definition of 'Public Interest' and are eager to receive feedback on it"

Some random intern: That term is used... exactly once outside the definition. I will tell Mister Smith to have a closer look if you remove Article 1 and, in your current Article 2, say instead that "member states may not prevent the reporting of information whose reporting is necessary for the wellbeing of society as a whole," or something like that anyway.