Ban of Censorship of Books (Submitted)

[Bergnovinaia]

This is open to comments, suggestions, and criticism.

Submitted: Ban on Government Censorship of Books

Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

Description: Assuring that citizens of all WA nations have equal unrestricted access to political and religious books;

Determined that all WA nations cannot censor any political or religious book, every citizen should have the choice to educate themselves about religion and politics and the governments of these nations cannot impede by censoring such books.

Nonetheless, this will not stop the governments from encouraging certain religions and political views.

Book censorship is to be clearly defined as follows:

Book censorship: The act of the governments of the WA nations destroying, confiscating, censoring, or altering of any book in any way containing major political views and religious views. Books containing major political and religious views are defined as 1) any holy book (i.e. Bible), 2) any book in which the goal is to convert the person to a specific religion, 3) any book concerning international politics, 4) any book describing a political view (i.e. a book about democracy), and 5) any book where the author is trying to address an issue to 1,2,3,or 4.

The definition of governments confiscating books is as follows: Government officials seize books from at least 1,000 citizens at any given time without the consent of the citizens.

Also, any WA member nation is forbid of setting embargos on books specified or raising taxes on them.

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of each and every citizen to have such books.

Requires all WA nations to comply with this law. However, governments may push a certain political view or religion upon its citizens.

Expects that all member nations make it known to the citizens that they have this right.

Allows member state to censor, confiscate, or not release such books that include the following: 1)promote general hatred (not of other nations, religions, or political views), 2)criminal acts such as terrorism, 3)or contain explicit content

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to make citizens unaware of other political and religious views.

[Progressive Union]

As discussed in what ended-up being a one-on-one meeting at the Small Sovereign Nation Summit, I am on board with this proposal. Since the World Assembly's purpose is to improve worldwide human and civil rights, this seems like an obvious Resolution to be heard by the member nations.

After all, everyone should have the ability to further their own knowledge and understand, and such books offer instruction and knowledge to achieve such a purpose.

FROM THE OFFICE OF:
D. Mark Melancon
Prime Minister

[Bergnovinaia]

As discussed in what ended-up being a one-on-one meeting at the Small Sovereign Nation Summit, I am on board with this proposal. Since the World Assembly's purpose is to improve worldwide human and civil rights, this seems like an obvious Resolution to be heard by the member nations.

After all, everyone should have the ability to further their own knowledge and understand, and such books offer instruction and knowledge to achieve such a purpose.

FROM THE OFFICE OF:
D. Mark Melancon
Prime Minister

It is unjust for nations to restrict these freedoms. Thank you for your approval.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I support the right to free speech but regrettably this draft has some deep holes and shortcomings and will need some revisions. Some governments have to censor books that promote general hatred, criminal acts such as terrorism, or contain explicit content.

In terms of confiscation and book-burning these terms are rather dated in terms of modern society. We call it censorship.

Generally, as the World Assembly exists to improve the world a resolution that limits censorship on books to genuine situations as described (but not limited to) is possible.

[Brewdomia]

I support the right to free speech but regrettably this draft has some deep holes and shortcomings and will need some revisions. Some governments have to censor books that promote general hatred, criminal acts such as terrorism, or contain explicit content.

In terms of confiscation and book-burning these terms are rather dated in terms of modern society. We call it censorship.

Generally, as the World Assembly exists to improve the world a resolution that limits censorship on books to genuine situations as described (but not limited to) is possible.

I agree

[Bergnovinaia]

I support the right to free speech but regrettably this draft has some deep holes and shortcomings and will need some revisions. Some governments have to censor books that promote general hatred, criminal acts such as terrorism, or contain explicit content.

In terms of confiscation and book-burning these terms are rather dated in terms of modern society. We call it censorship.

Generally, as the World Assembly exists to improve the world a resolution that limits censorship on books to genuine situations as described (but not limited to) is possible.

I agree

Thanks. I'll reword it to censorship. Do you see anything that needs to be fixed other than "books that promote general hatred, criminal acts such as terrorism, or contain explicit content"?

[Absolvability]

If you're going to make it illegal for governments to burn books I don't see how you could possibly grant them the loophole of being able to burn books that 'spread hatred.' It could easily be said that any political book is spreading 'hatred' about the opposing political view. This might seem a little extreme if we were talking about Democrats and Republicans, who often don't agree but aren't often as eachother's throats. However... if we start talking about the more extremist points of view, like Nazism, then you see my point.

Now personally, I find Nazis distasteful. However, I don't see how you can write a proposal against censorship while promoting it in certain circumstances. Freedoms will always come with the inherent cost of what we may consider to be abuse. If you can't embrace it, then don't embrace freedom.

Also, in your proposal, you may want to mention something about the amount of books that constitutes a government crusade of burning. I mean... hypothetically... and I know this is silly... suppose a President is stranded on an island and burns some books to survive. Saying they can't "burn any books for any reason," is far too broad. Afterall... there is such a thing as Freedom of Expression. For some it's burning flags. For some it's burning books.

I believe the important stipulations should be that: 1) the book belongs to the person burning it (and/or has permission;) 2) the amount of books being burnt isn't noticably detrimental to the circulation of that book.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Look, I mean, it is nice, but isn't it already covered by "Freedom of Expression", GA #30?

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

It is redundant.

[Bergnovinaia]

How is owning a book freedom of expression?

[Sionis Prioratus]

How is owning a book freedom of expression?

Authoring a book is freedom of expression.
A publishing company putting in the market a book as the author intended it is freedom of expression.
A bookshop putting in its shelves any such book it wishes is freedom of expression.

Buying such books from a shop directly flows from freedom of expression.

[Bergnovinaia]

How is owning a book freedom of expression?

Authoring a book is freedom of expression.
A publishing company putting in the market a book as the author intended it is freedom of expression.
A bookshop putting in its shelves any such book it wishes is freedom of expression.

Buying such books from a shop directly flows from freedom of expression.

So hence being redundant it would be ejected?

[Sionis Prioratus]

I'm not a Mod. All I can say is that notwithstanding I think your concern is a legitimate and sincere one, it has already been taken care of by means of GA #30.

[Bergnovinaia]

I'm not a Mod. All I can say is that notwithstanding I think your concern is a legitimate and sincere one, it has already been taken care of by means of GA #30.

Thanks. I'll see what other nations (and hopefully mods think though).

[West Newmanistan]

It might sound cheesy, but perhaps a definition of what constitutes a "book" is in order. Because say, could a government find a loophole if such item is a newspaper or a magazine? Saying "published material" or something to that effect would be better.

You have my support on "thin ice". In other words, I like what you've written, but just slightly because the religion deal is sensitive to me. Changing a few things around could lose it.

[Bergnovinaia]

It might sound cheesy, but perhaps a definition of what constitutes a "book" is in order. Because say, could a government find a loophole if such item is a newspaper or a magazine? Saying "published material" or something to that effect would be better.

You have my support on "thin ice". In other words, I like what you've written, but just slightly because the religion deal is sensitive to me. Changing a few things around could lose it.

Shoot your right about what constitutes a book I already submitted it though. Oh well.

[West Newmanistan]

I'm not a Mod. All I can say is that notwithstanding I think your concern is a legitimate and sincere one, it has already been taken care of by means of GA #30.

It could be up for debate. To me GA #30 implies more of the right of the someone to publish the material, whereas this implies the right for someone to own the material. They could go hand and hand, I suppose.

[Bergnovinaia]

I think you're right. Freedom of expression is someone's right to express how they feel against a cetain subject. This just prevents the govt. from thaking materials that allow them to make such decsions.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Should this draft be legal (disputed), the title should be changed from "Ban on Government Censorship of Books" to "Ban on Government Ownership of Books", since censorship is clearly already prohibited, and ownership is the focus of your argument.

[Linux and the X]

It doesn't ban government ownership of books, though, it bans government confiscation of books.

[Bergnovinaia]

It doesn't ban government ownership of books, though, it bans government confiscation of books.

Whoa. Yeah were aren't saying the govt. can't own books (that would be ejected from the GA floor). If it was that we could pretty much kiss liberaries goodbye. It's bans govt's. confiscating, destroying, and censoring (rewriting) political and religous books ONLY.

[Seculartopia]

Its a good idea,but it needs some work.
Also i doubt if this will pass, many nations do censor the media as part of their government ideaology,more so than your proposal has allowed

[Bergnovinaia]

Its a good idea,but it needs some work.
Also i doubt if this will pass, many nations do censor the media as part of their government ideaology,more so than your proposal has allowed

The point of the proposal is to broaden what the citizens can see furthering democracy. There is a clause that says that nations have the right to push certain values. However, I can see how this may not be enough. If it doesn't pass, I'll rework it and resubmit it.

[Bergnovinaia]

bump

[Al Shire]

I whole heartedly disagree with this ideal. Ideals like right and wrong, good/evil, depend on a nation's point of view. The world doesn't move to the beat of one drum (what might be right for you, may not be right for some ).

Each nation has a right to run things the way they want to and should not have to subject themselves to the will of their neighbors. We should be free to make our own decisions.

I think the option of burning books should be expanded, Books that contain ideals that may be harmful to the populace for example, Nations should be GIVEN THE CHOICE of what they want to do.

[Bergnovinaia]

I whole heartedly disagree with this ideal. Ideals like right and wrong, good/evil, depend on a nation's point of view. The world doesn't move to the beat of one drum (what might be right for you, may not be right for some ).

Each nation has a right to run things the way they want to and should not have to subject themselves to the will of their neighbors. We should be free to make our own decisions.

I think the option of burning books should be expanded, Books that contain ideals that may be harmful to the populace for example, Nations should be GIVEN THE CHOICE of what they want to do.

But that would make it optional and hence would be banned.