[DRAFT] Freedom of Thought

[Applebania]

Freedom of Thought


Category: Human Rights

---

Strength: Significant

---

Submitted By: Applebania

The World Assembly:

APPLAUDING the effort this esteemed body has taken to ensure the freedom of expression necessary for worldwide progress,

DISAPPOINTED that the necessary first step to freedom of expression has yet to be protected by the World Assembly, that is, the freedom to hold ideas, no matter how controversial they may be,

APPALLED at the declaration of certain ideas in certain societies as “Thoughtcrime”, that is, ideas declared illegal by the state,

CONCERNED that a minority of nations are developing technology to completely control the minds of citizens, thus making them mere puppets of the state,

WILLING to prevent this heinous violation of sapient rights with extreme prejudice,

HEREBY:

DEFINES “Mind-control device” as a device used to control the mind and thoughts of one or many people,

PROHIBITS the use of Mind-control devices for the purposes of the suppression of free speech/thought by all entities, governmental or non-governmental,

ALLOWS the use of these devices for the purposes of preventing serious crime, such as murder,

OUTLAWS the declaration of ideas/thoughts as illegal or “Thoughtcrime”,

ENSHRINES the right to free thought as one of the, if not the most essential human right,

MANDATES that governments take all measures necessary in order to protect it.

Joshua takes a seat, with the book he has currently reading. The book was titled "1984".

[Aligned Planets]

My first thought (no pun intended) is whether one can have freedom of expression without freedom of thought.

If all people have the right to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal (GAR #30) - then is it not suggested and implied that their thoughts that lead up to these views are also protected?

For how could one have freedom of expression on a viewpoint if one's thoughts had already been controlled by the state or by non-state actors?

Indeed, I feel that the CONCERNED clause would suggest Member States are acting in contrary to GAR #30, which would be illegal. Further, your BANS clause doesn't make much sense.. are you banning people from declaring their ideas?

I'm not sure this piece of legislation is needed, as it seems to me to already be covered.

[Applebania]

My first thought (no pun intended) is whether one can have freedom of expression without freedom of thought.

If all people have the right to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal (GAR #30) - then is it not suggested and implied that their thoughts that lead up to these views are also protected?

For how could one have freedom of expression on a viewpoint if one's thoughts had already been controlled by the state or by non-state actors?

Indeed, I feel that the CONCERNED clause would suggest Member States are acting in contrary to GAR #30, which would be illegal. Further, your BANS clause doesn't make much sense.. are you banning people from declaring their ideas?

I'm not sure this piece of legislation is needed, as it seems to me to already be covered.

"Your concerns are noted. While this may be considered as duplication by some, I would see differently. GAR #30 only protects the expression of ideas, not having said ideas in the first place. It, as such, can be loopholed."

OOC: How would you alter the BANS clause to make it make more sense? I'll give you co-author credit~~~

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Yes, because what Alqania's proposal was really missing was a sensible treatment of mind-control devices.

[Aligned Planets]

My first thought (no pun intended) is whether one can have freedom of expression without freedom of thought.

If all people have the right to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal (GAR #30) - then is it not suggested and implied that their thoughts that lead up to these views are also protected?

For how could one have freedom of expression on a viewpoint if one's thoughts had already been controlled by the state or by non-state actors?

Indeed, I feel that the CONCERNED clause would suggest Member States are acting in contrary to GAR #30, which would be illegal. Further, your BANS clause doesn't make much sense.. are you banning people from declaring their ideas?

I'm not sure this piece of legislation is needed, as it seems to me to already be covered.

"Your concerns are noted. While this may be considered as duplication by some, I would see differently. GAR #30 only protects the expression of ideas, not having said ideas in the first place. It, as such, can be loopholed."

OOC: How would you alter the BANS clause to make it make more sense? I'll give you co-author credit~~~

I get what you are saying - that the explicit freedom to have thoughts has not been specifically protected - but I don't see how one can express oneself freely and openly if one's thoughts have been pre-controlled by a government or non-government agent.

OOC: Haha thanks for the offer, but the rewording of clauses / suggestion of text isn't worthy (in my opinion) of co-authorship.. I'm happy to help just for the sake of helping. I'd like a couple of others to weigh in on whether freedom of thought is protected by freedom of expression before I get into the nitty-gritty of clause refining, but will have a look again this evening.

[Applebania]

OOC: Yes, because what Alqania's proposal was really missing was a sensible treatment of mind-control devices.

OOC: Oops. Will still continue with this, though!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Yes, because what Alqania's proposal was really missing was a sensible treatment of mind-control devices.

OOC: Oops. Will still continue with this, though!

OOC: If the sane parts of it are duplication/contradiction, the rest of this should go into the joke proposals thread.

[MRWOFFLE]

Perhaps, if you're still going through with this, add a clause that bans brain washing also. It'll wipe ideas, preventing expression of ideas, but isn't necessarily controlling the mind. Perhaps instead of using the word control in:

DEFINES “Mind-control device” as a device used to control the mind and thoughts of one or many people

you can change control to alter, control, or confuse. so instead of that, you'll have
DEFINES "Mind-control device" as a device used to alter, control or confuse the mind and thoughts of one or many people

---

The Republic of MRWOFFLE agrees with the terms of this proposal and sees brain control as wrong. This proposal has support of our nation as long as it does not prevent from our citizens thoughts to be monitored. We will make no attempt to use any sorts of mind controlling devices, although we will continue to monitor them.
STAMP OF APPROVAL:

[Frisbeeteria]

Image

Let's go ahead and nip that in the bud. This is the World Assembly, and we don't really go for image spam here.

[Damanucus]

[sighs] This seemed like it would be a good proposal, then you added "mind-control device" to the proposal. And I was gone. I'm sorry, I cannot, for the life in me, take this seriously.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[MRWOFFLE]

[sighs] This seemed like it would be a good proposal, then you added "mind-control device" to the proposal. And I was gone. I'm sorry, I cannot, for the life in me, take this seriously.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Stephanie Orman, Representative of the Normadic Peoples of Damanucus,
Although you may seem like this is a joke, please realize that some countries have gotten to the point in technology where this has become an issue.

OOC: Also please be aware that some countries claim their technological status to be far beyond this, and not only that but it's on of the issues the game provides, along with thought monitoring.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Image

Let's go ahead and nip that in the bud. This is the World Assembly, and we don't really go for image spam here.

You can see where they'd get the idea it's ok, though!

[sighs] This seemed like it would be a good proposal, then you added "mind-control device" to the proposal. And I was gone. I'm sorry, I cannot, for the life in me, take this seriously.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Stephanie Orman, Representative of the Normadic Peoples of Damanucus,
Although you may seem like this is a joke, please realize that some countries have gotten to the point in technology where this has become an issue.

"Well, why should that be illegal? The WA doesn't (so far as I can see) ban chemical castration of sex offenders, so why should it ban a non-harmful means of preventing sex offenders from acting on their illegal desires, if that's available to technologically advanced nations?"

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[MRWOFFLE]

Perhaps you can put an exemption clause in the proposal that allows mind control mechanisms for medical purposes and for criminals.

[Starkmoor]

"I'm sorry, but... mind control devices? Opposed."

"Well, why should that be illegal? The WA doesn't (so far as I can see) ban chemical castration of sex offenders, so why should it ban a non-harmful means of preventing sex offenders from acting on their illegal desires, if that's available to technologically advanced nations?"

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I concur with this.

[MRWOFFLE]

"I'm sorry, but... mind control devices? Opposed."

"Well, why should that be illegal? The WA doesn't (so far as I can see) ban chemical castration of sex offenders, so why should it ban a non-harmful means of preventing sex offenders from acting on their illegal desires, if that's available to technologically advanced nations?"

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I concur with this.

All that is needed to be added to the proposal to allow these criminals to be controlled is

ALLOWS governments to use "Mind-Controlling Devices" on criminals as long as it's used for purposes to prevent them from committing another crime.

And perhaps if technologies have grown in other countries to help fight cancers, brain diseases, autism, or retards, you could add in a Medical Clause...

ALLOWS governments to use "Mind-Controlling Devices" on those whom need it to fight diseases or issues in the brain, as long as permission is given by the person before hand, and if the person is unable to grant permission, leave the decision to either the legal guardians.

[Aligned Planets]

All that is needed to be added to the proposal to allow these criminals to be controlled is

ALLOWS governments to use "Mind-Controlling Devices" on criminals as long as it's used for purposes to prevent them from committing another crime.

My concern here is the "slippery slope" argument. If we allow this provision, what is to prevent more nefarious governments from classifying minor misdemeanours (i.e. jaywalking) as a crime requiring mind-control to prevent further "crimes" being committed? Further, whilst under the influence of the mind-control device, could governments not also insert various "re-education" thoughts for whatever purposes.

Anyway, I'd like to see an updated draft from the author to reflect the comments thus far and to give a greater steer on the direction the proposal is travelling in. I'll reserve further judgement until that time.

[Normlpeople]

Clover grins "So long as hypnosis magic isn't banned, since it's not a device, I can live with it. In all seriousness, I fail to see the issue here. I believe this is all well covered under existing legislation already"

[Aligned Planets]

I fail to see the issue here. I believe this is all well covered under existing legislation already."

Seconded, as per my initial comments in the discussion. I'm not seeing a separation between freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

[Applebania]

UPDATED: Added an exception clause. Would mentioning the gnomes be legal?

[Normlpeople]

UPDATED: Added an exception clause. Would mentioning the gnomes be legal?

OOC: I dont believe so. May have to bring in an oversight committee for that.

[Applebania]

OOC: I'll have to change it then. I'll do it before tomorrow.

[MRWOFFLE]

I fail to see the issue here. I believe this is all well covered under existing legislation already."

Seconded, as per my initial comments in the discussion. I'm not seeing a separation between freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

Well, it's blocking the loophole. If there is no expressions able to be thought, there are no expressions to be expressed. It's mainly a proposal to stop the loophole. The Republic of MRWOFFLE believes that it's necessary to ensure the freedom of expression applies to all, so everyone can use it and express their own thoughts, not thoughts infused by the governments.

Also I recommend adding another statement that say practices of altering the mind etc etc to avoid other forms of brain control not using certain advanced technologies.

[The Leningrad Union]

I'm in full support of this. However, I believe it should have added parts about mind-reading devices.

[MRWOFFLE]

I'm in full support of this. However, I believe it should have added parts about mind-reading devices.

I disagree, and if you believe in this please, I will show you the way to this post: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=296331

The point of this is to allow people to think, why can't the government read what they're thinking in order for their safety. We can aid them in time of need, help prevent crimes, etc.

[The Leningrad Union]

why can't the government read what they're thinking in order for their safety

I don't know, maybe because it's a violation of personal privacy?