[PASSED] Repeal "Internet Neutrality Act"

[Imperium Anglorum]

58 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Honest Mistake (The "emphasizing" clause in this repeal proposal should be removed, because the target resolution limits only the actions of governments [section 2] and internet service providers [section 3] not parents and businesses); and either RL reference ("the Internet", with an upper-case 'I', being the internet that exists in RL) or Meta-gaming (You RP that there's only one internet known to all the NS nations, and are trying to make that RP canonical for everybody).

OOC: Colour me surprised that there exist people who still believe in what is basically 'forced RP' as a reason for anything. Welcome back to the world where everything is illegal because literally every resolution is forced RP.

"The original WA legislation is fine. We will instruct our satellite state to vote against should this come to vote."

Elsie: Next up, Ambassador, try referencing every all of Auralia's previously statements in this entire discussion before giving a two sentence response. It helps to disguise how little you responded with so well. At this point, we should introduce a filibuster rule so we can stop ambassadors who do little other than waste our time.

[Christian Democrats]

58 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Honest Mistake (The "emphasizing" clause in this repeal proposal should be removed, because the target resolution limits only the actions of governments [section 2] and internet service providers [section 3] not parents and businesses); and either RL reference ("the Internet", with an upper-case 'I', being the internet that exists in RL) or Meta-gaming (You RP that there's only one internet known to all the NS nations, and are trying to make that RP canonical for everybody).

OOC: Colour me surprised that there exist people who still believe in what is basically 'forced RP' as a reason for anything. Welcome back to the world where everything is illegal because literally every resolution is forced RP.

I agree with IA here.

[United Massachusetts]

I am opposed to this resolution

[Wallenburg]

I don't particularly care much for this proposal. It makes some arguments that I believe are quite over the top, and that consider the target far more powerful than it actually is. However, with an actually effective replacement underway, I can confidently support this repeal.

[East Kerbin]

Interesting, but not interesting enough.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Interesting, but not interesting enough.

Fairburn: Clearly a compelling reason to vote against.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Resolution is at vote.

[Ru-]

we are big supporters of net nuetrality but we hated the target resolution for many of the reasons stated in this repeal and were dismayed it passed in the first place.

full support

[Socialist Federative Yugoslavia]

Let me get this straight - NationStates is attempting to end net-neutrality within itself at the same the FCC is trying to end net neutrality in the real world that will actually hurt NationStates?

[Fauxia]

Let me get this straight - NationStates is attempting to end net-neutrality within itself at the same the FCC is trying to end net neutrality in the real world that will actually hurt NationStates?

Did I mention I changed my position to for this repeal?

Also, it doesn't end net neutrality in NationStates (why do people always think this?) It just ends neutrality in states that want to. Also, replacement legislation should guarantee some degree of neutrality.

I am opposed to this resolution

IC: "Why am I not surprised? This is a good reason to support."

"The original WA legislation is fine. We will instruct our satellite state to vote against should this come to vote."

Elsie: Next up, Ambassador, try referencing every all of Auralia's previously statements in this entire discussion before giving a two sentence response. It helps to disguise how little you responded with so well. At this point, we should introduce a filibuster rule so we can stop ambassadors who do little other than waste our time.

"Ambassador, we changed our position, re-reading the repeal. Part of it is that internet neutrality probably can be left to member states, partly because of the one clause about schools blocking pornography and such."

[Wallenburg]

Let me get this straight - NationStates is attempting to end net-neutrality within itself at the same the FCC is trying to end net neutrality in the real world that will actually hurt NationStates?

1) This is the General Assembly, a roleplay-oriented part of NS. This resolution has nothing to do with the website itself.
2) The very same person authoring this repeal has written a replacement, one that actually does what it sets out to achieve, and regulates the Internet intelligently.

[Araraukar]

and regulates the Internet intelligently.

OOC: Well, that's debatable, but the replacement does exist, yes.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

We oppose. The internet should be a place of free speech, and allowing restrictions like you want would lead to abuse of it.

I agree with the nation of Dobrobyt here. I also oppose this since repealing this would be a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of information.

[Fauxia]

We oppose. The internet should be a place of free speech, and allowing restrictions like you want would lead to abuse of it.

I agree with the nation of Dobrobyt here. I also oppose this since repealing this would be a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of information.

I think you need to read what Wallenburg just said.

We oppose. The internet should be a place of free speech, and allowing restrictions like you want would lead to abuse of it.

"Why do ambassadors not understand repeals? Feel free to regulate in your own country! It's not like it illegalized net neutrality. But the current resolution has several loopholes."

[Wallenburg]

We oppose. The internet should be a place of free speech, and allowing restrictions like you want would lead to abuse of it.

I agree with the nation of Dobrobyt here. I also oppose this since repealing this would be a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of information.

Exactly what in this repeal violates free speech rights or the free flow of information? Have you read the repeal text?

[Kus Sikobietordia]

I will not vote yes on this till we can Insure that the act that replace it is sufficient I would like to see the new bill or at least part of it for reading before moving forward

[Fauxia]

I will not vote yes on this till we can Insure that the act that replace it is sufficient I would like to see the new bill or at least part of it for reading before moving forward

The author has a replacement too, don't worry

[TELNOS Corporation]

Isaiah Apodaca
Chief Executive Officer
isaiah.apodaca@telnos.com

---

TELNOS Corporation Announces Opposition

Today, TELNOS Corporation® is announcing it's opposition in regards to repealing "Internet Neutrality Act". Further restrictions will lead to layoffs and discourage investments in markets we currently serve.

TELNOS Corporation® is NationStates leading wireless provider with over 237.6 Billion customers.

Due to proposed reforms, TELNOS has threatened to amend it's Terms and Conditions Agreement to prevent markets from imposing additional regulations and for it's T&C Agreement to supersede any local, national and international regulations that impose burden on the network.

[Templar Republic]

Your Excellencies,

We are voting for because we support the replacement resolution.

Sincerely yours.

[Fauxia]

Read one of my last posts please, TELNOS Corp

[Imperium Anglorum]

It ought be repeated:

1. WA members have total freedom to legislate on topics which are not yet legislated upon by the World Assembly.

2. Repeals do not entail that no legislation shall ever be passed on that topic in the future. In fact, the current piece of legislation was proposed after the passage of my repeal of Open Internet Order.

3. Legislation will almost certainly be passed on this topic within the course of a few weeks.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Also, because I know that someone is going to suggest this at some point:

Resolutions can't be amended. Repealing and replacing them is the only way to change them.

[Fauxia]

It ought be repeated:

1. WA members have total freedom to legislate on topics which are not yet legislated upon by the World Assembly.

2. Repeals do not entail that no legislation shall ever be passed on that topic in the future. In fact, the current piece of legislation was proposed after the passage of my repeal of Open Internet Order.

3. Legislation will almost certainly be passed on this topic within the course of a few weeks.

On point #3, the resolution literally says it hopes legislation will soon be passed, and Auralia has one.

[Draconae]

Noting that prohibition on member states blocking content is meaningless, as member states can simply declare any content they wish to block illegal, rendering it unprotected by the target resolution,

"No they can't, due to GAR #30 and #155 which protect the freedom of expression."

I would like to reiterate the ambassador's statement that the resolution is incorrect on this point. Not only is the prohibition not meaningless, it actually adds enforcement to GA #30 'Freedom of Expression'. This is because GA #30 requires member states to uphold the right of all people to express views in all media but it does not require member states to allow anyone else to see those views."

[Evil Eagle]

This was just passed in APRIL!!!
Now it looks like it's on the track to repeal. What the hell is wrong with this bureaucracy?
Stop passing laws that are just repeal worthy, stop repealing laws that are pass worthy. This body looks silly and confused. Obsessed with busy work.
Read these bills before implementing them, then stick with your belief in them. Unless a resolution is well needed and well defined it should never pass in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with doing nothing when nothing is necessary.