NationStates

It would seem to me that Resolution 30, "Freedom of Expression," already covers this. Resolution 30 states, in part,

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

(emphasis added)
The press and broadcasters would seem to be included in "all available media." The entire resolution can be found here.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

New Rockport wrote:It would seem to me that Resolution 30, "Freedom of Expression," already covers this. Resolution 30 states, in part,

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

(emphasis added)
The press and braodcasters would seem to be included in "all available media." The entire resolution can be found here.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

You could perhaps be right. However, i am not really sure that freedom of the press is the same as freedom of expression.

Yes, GA #30 does cover many parts of the resolution but there has to be some way to make use of the Free Press category, honoured ambassador to New Rockport. Obviously GA #30 has made much of this draft redundant, regrettably, so it is far from ready.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Yes, GA #30 does cover many parts of the resolution but there has to be some way to make use of the Free Press category, honoured ambassador to New Rockport. Obviously GA #30 has made much of this draft redundant, regrettably, so it is far from ready.

Why would they even make a free press category if it shouldn't be used?????

Looking into the Jolt Archives, the category was created in March 2006, well before the changeover to the WA.

My government would support the ammended version of this proposal as put forth.

I think I might have found a way to make this so that it doesn't overlap Resolution 30. Resolution 30 recognizes the right of individuals to free expression, but does not mention a right of organizations to free expression. Therefore, a resolution that recognizes the press freedom of organizations would appear to be legal because it would not duplicate Resolution 30.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

New Rockport wrote:I think I might have found a way to make this so that it doesn't overlap Resolution 30. Resolution 30 recognizes the right of individuals to free expression, but does not mention a right of organizations to free expression. Therefore, a resolution that recognizes the press freedom of organizations would appear to be legal because it would not duplicate Resolution 30.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

Your right. So perhaps adding a clause saying something like, "The government hearby does not restrict the voices of any press organization," could potentially make it legal.

Since I cannot find a reliable pivotal place to edit and display my current version of the draft I am forced to post it here:


Description:The World Assembly,

• Recognising the rights of media organizations to express their opinion on genuine issues and affairs of the world without fear of repression;
• Seeking to protect the above rights while keeping in mind of the need to protect moral decency;

Hereby,

1. Mandates that:
a) All media organisations in member states have the unalienable right to express their opinion on genuine issues and affairs of the world without fear of repression;
b) Member states must not censor content created by the media organizations any further than the exceptions given in Section 2 and 3.

2. Allows member states to restrict media organizations from publishing, without seeking advice, information that has the potential to:
a) Compromise military and intelligence operations and methods;
b) Put the safety of those involved in such operations at risk;
c) Cause attacks that would damage the critical infrastructure and/or endanger lives.
d) Reveal personal information or invade the privacy of an individual without consent.

3. Provides for member states to regulate the following types of content published by media organizations in the interests of moral decency:
a) Explicit, obscene or adult content (but not to ban them unless it is used unlawfully);
b) Genuinely libellous information about individuals;
c) Content which incites fraud, criminal activities, racial or social hatred;
d) Content which tries to hypnotise the audience into doing certain actions;
e) Content which plagiarises original content or violates applicable copyright laws.

Co-authored by Bergnovinaia.

you mispelled organizations (I spelled it right so just copy it). I think were ready to submit if you are.

Ready to submit? That was quick, honoured ambassador.

I don't think we've spent enough time waiting for the opinions and feedback of other experienced resolution writers. It is worth waiting for further feedback from other experienced resolution writers so the quality of the draft increases.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Ready to submit? That was quick, honoured ambassador.

I don't think we've spent enough time waiting for the opinions and feedback of other experienced resolution writers. It is worth waiting for further feedback from other experienced resolution writers so the quality of the draft increases.

yeah that's true. Sorry about that i had this confused with another thread.

Very nice proposal honored ambassador.

I look forward to seeing if there are any further changes to the draft. I support this piece of legislation and once submitted you can count on my endorsement.

what if the media through their expression of information could cause an event to take place that would not be in the best interests of the people. So under this
Act the media could potentionally cause anarchy through releasing some information. Say for example there was a virus which would kill approx 10% of the population. By releasing this information to the public it causes mass anarchy and the government lose control so people emigrate to other countries and spread the virus further this killing even more people than was predicted.

Unfreedomia wrote:what if the media through their expression of information could cause an event to take place that would not be in the best interests of the people. So under this
Act the media could potentionally cause anarchy through releasing some information. Say for example there was a virus which would kill approx 10% of the population. By releasing this information to the public it causes mass anarchy and the government lose control so people emigrate to other countries and spread the virus further this killing even more people than was predicted.

This would come under the existing Epidemic Response Act and the future version of a Convention on Emigration

Anti-social behaviour is too broad. Could the definition be narrowed to illegal behaviour? It would give the nation the liberty it needs but it would be reliant on laws and not just the whims of the population.

Refined at section 3c:

3. Further specifies that member states may only regulate the following content of press organizations to preserve moral decency:
c) Content that promotes criminal activities and/or racial/social hatred.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:1. Mandates fundamentally that:
a) All press organisations and their journalists in member states have the unalienable right to express and voice their opinion on all issues and affairs of member states and the world without the fear of repression by the government of the member state.
b) Member states are prohibited from disseminating information made by press organizations any further than the exceptions as specified in Section 2 and 3.

I would recommend striking "and their journalists" from Section 1(a). Journalists are individuals and are therefore protected by Resolution 30. Additionally, press freedom does not just protect journalism, but also other publications including art, music, advocacy, academic writing, fiction, poetry, and advertising.

Also, disseminating is not quite the right word in Section 1(b). I recommend replacing it with censoring.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:3. Further specifies that member states may only regulate the following content of press organizations to preserve moral decency:
a) Explicit or adult content, but not completely outlaw it unless used criminally;
b) Genuinely libellous information about ordinary people or celebrities;
c) Content that promotes criminal activities and/or racial/social hatred;
d) Content that attempts to hypnotise a viewer into doing certain actions.

Section 3 probably should also include exceptions for fraud, plagiarism, and copyright and trademark infringement.

Raj Patel, Esq.
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador

New Rockport wrote:I would recommend striking "and their journalists" from Section 1(a). Journalists are individuals and are therefore protected by Resolution 30. Additionally, press freedom does not just protect journalism, but also other publications including art, music, advocacy, academic writing, fiction, poetry, and advertising.

Expanded to cover media organizations instead of just press organizations. It is worth noting that the Free press category mainly covers media organizations.

New Rockport wrote:Also, disseminating is not quite the right word in Section 1(b). I recommend replacing it with censoring.

Got that, honoured ambassador.

New Rockport wrote:Section 3 probably should also include exceptions for fraud, plagiarism, and copyright and trademark infringement.

Refined to read:

3. Further specifies that member states may only regulate the following content of press organizations to preserve moral decency:
a) Explicit or adult content, but not completely outlaw it unless used criminally;
b) Genuinely libellous information about ordinary people or celebrities;
c) Content that promotes or causes fraud, criminal activities and/or racial/social hatred;
d) Content that attempts to hypnotise a viewer into doing certain actions;
e) Content that plagiarises original content or violates national and transnational copyright laws.

See revised version.

We can support this proposal as it currently stands.

I could easily vote for this to pass. Now to just get it through the trial-by-fire and to the passing point.

Currently, I am proof-reading the collaborated version to check for potential conflicts with past resolutions (especially GA #30) and I would appreciate the honoured ambassador to update the OP with the collaborated version if they see fit to do so.

However, I am already seeing that the issue of privacy is missing. I might try (under section 2):

2. Allows member states to restrict media organizations from publishing, without seeking advice, information that has the potential to... disclose confidential personal information or invade the privacy of an individual without consent.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Currently, I am proof-reading the collaborated version to check for potential conflicts with past resolutions (especially GA #30) and I would appreciate the honoured ambassador to update the OP with the collaborated version if they see fit to do so.

However, I am already seeing that the issue of privacy is missing. I might try (under section 2):

2. Allows member states to restrict media organizations from publishing, without seeking advice, information that has the potential to... disclose confidential personal information or invade the privacy of an individual without consent.

OK i did it.

Further revisions have been made to this post to take into account of the right to privacy and clearing up of the English, although it will need to be triple-checked to ensure it does not overlap with Greenlandic People's Right to Privacy proposal, knowing that it may pass. As I said it is covering organizational press freedom, which now appears to be compatible with GA #30.

Even though I am against coporations "Destroying" My nation, I beilieve they have every right to report what they want instead of censoring what the goverment would say was "Lowering moral". However, The fact that The republic of anarchifia dissaproves of news reporters I suport your values and idealology.