Advertisement
by Bananaistan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:36 am
by Uan aa Boa » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:27 am
by Bananaistan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:04 am
by Aclion » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:06 am
Bananaistan wrote:“We would prefer provisions leaving the regulation of advertising completely in the hands of members according to their own cultural norms instead of a one size fits no one solution.”
- Ted
by Bananaistan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:33 am
by Aclion » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:04 am
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: We don't need this US system of "corporations are people too and they're also protected by the first amendment" stuff, thanks very much. It's American cultural imperialism. Plenty of countries get by just grand while also restricting advertising, EG most of Europe.
by Zone 71 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:21 am
Aclion wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OOC: We don't need this US system of "corporations are people too and they're also protected by the first amendment" stuff, thanks very much. It's American cultural imperialism. Plenty of countries get by just grand while also restricting advertising, EG most of Europe.
OOC: Ah. I see. Your objection not anything to do with the resolution.That is good. I was worried that it might be based on an opposition to giving a political voice to people who don't own their own media outlets. I am glad to see you are just an ignorant nationalist.
by Bananaistan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:23 am
Aclion wrote:Bananaistan wrote:
"Or it would turn it into a blocker on more fuckwittery about letting businesses say whatever they want whenever they want. I'd like that."
- Ted
"This proposal includes protections both for regulation on commercial speech and for the regulation of political speech by profit seeking entities, so i'm not sure how you came to that conclusion."Bananaistan wrote:OOC: We don't need this US system of "corporations are people too and they're also protected by the first amendment" stuff, thanks very much. It's American cultural imperialism. Plenty of countries get by just grand while also restricting advertising, EG most of Europe.
OOC: Ah. I see. Your objection not anything to do with the resolution.That is good. I was worried that it might be based on an opposition to giving a political voice to people who don't own their own media outlets. I am glad to see you are just an ignorant nationalist.
by Aclion » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:26 am
Zone 71 wrote:Aclion wrote:OOC: Ah. I see. Your objection not anything to do with the resolution.That is good. I was worried that it might be based on an opposition to giving a political voice to people who don't own their own media outlets. I am glad to see you are just an ignorant nationalist.
OOC: Not only is that statement blatantly rude (if not flaming) and unnecessary, but these sort of petty comments from the co-author do nothing but harm the reception of your proposal.
It's best that you don't let criticism get to you personally. If one person opposes the proposal, either try to find out why they don't like it and make any changes that you see fit, or let it go. Don't try to pursue a fruitless fight.
by Bananaistan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:34 am
Aclion wrote:Zone 71 wrote:OOC: Not only is that statement blatantly rude (if not flaming) and unnecessary, but these sort of petty comments from the co-author do nothing but harm the reception of your proposal.
It's best that you don't let criticism get to you personally. If one person opposes the proposal, either try to find out why they don't like it and make any changes that you see fit, or let it go. Don't try to pursue a fruitless fight.
I know that Bananaistan's objection is an ideological objection to the very idea that businesses should be allowed to exist, never mind the idea that they might have the right to criticize government policy. This is not an issue that can be resolved by changes to the proposal.
by Aclion » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:41 am
Bananaistan wrote:And ofc it's to do with the proposal! The proposal sets up completely unrestricted advertising for corporations with only a tiny sliver of the narrowest of restrictions. I'm hardly completely off the wall in concluding that this is informed by the practice in one particular RL country.
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Again playing the man rather than the ball.
If IC Bananaistan was ideologically opposed to the "very idea that businesses should be allowed to exist" it would have abolished them long ago and this proposal would have no impact whatsoever
by Bananaistan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:01 am
Aclion wrote:Bananaistan wrote:And ofc it's to do with the proposal! The proposal sets up completely unrestricted advertising for corporations with only a tiny sliver of the narrowest of restrictions. I'm hardly completely off the wall in concluding that this is informed by the practice in one particular RL country.
The proposal does no such thing. First, The proposal only extends right to expression enjoyed to individuals to groups. It does not "set up" any right to advertise. Second, the proposal grants member nations the power to restrict both commercial expression and political expression by groups, beyond those restrictions which are allowed for individuals, where that expression can harm the public or unduly influence public policy. Third the proposal does not just protect "the corporations, man" but labour unions, community associations, political parties. All sorts of organisations that campaign against corporate influence.
It is a far cry from "completely unrestricted advertising for corporations". and the restrictions allow are far more then a sliver.
Aclion wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Again playing the man rather than the ball.
If IC Bananaistan was ideologically opposed to the "very idea that businesses should be allowed to exist" it would have abolished them long ago and this proposal would have no impact whatsoever
Doing so would mean noncompliance with WAR#27, or leaving the WA.
by Aclion » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:08 am
Bananaistan wrote:The proposal is clear in the very few restrictions it allows. 1) Lies, 2) stuff like tobacco, and 3) age restricted goods/services advertising aimed at children. That's all.
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Yet only alcohol and gambling advertising aimed at children could be restricted by member states. 1. An existing resolution, Protecting Free Expression grants member states the power to impose reasonable restrictions on advertising aimed at minors. This proposal extends individual right to expression to groups, but does not establish any rights to advertise. It is therefore duplicitous to claim that this resolution bars member states from restricting advertising to minors.
Nor could legal firms ambulance chasing be restricted. 2. An existing resolution, Protecting Free Expression, protects individual expression. So regardless of this proposal member states cannot prevent the practice where it does not fall under the exceptions of Protecting Free Expression, exceptions which also apply to groups under this proposal, since again, this proposal does not establish any right to advertise, but extends individual rights. If you want to regulate barratry I suggest you draft a proposal to do so, maybe poke SP while you're at it. As it is, this is an objection to Protecting Free Expression, not this proposal.
Day time advertising of toys etc aimed at children? Also completely unrestricted. See 1.
Prescription drugs? See 2.
I could go on and on.
Please, keep throwing mud at the wall. If there's any that sticks I'd like it to happen now rather then after the proposal is submitted.
I don't give a fiddlers about how the proposal protects the speech of all these other types of organisations "man". I have not raised any objection or comment at all on same. The fact that it severely restricts how advertising can be regulated is what I am concentrating on.
by Uan aa Boa » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:47 am
by Aclion » Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:26 am
by Liberimery » Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:45 am
by United Massachusetts » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:15 pm
Uan aa Boa wrote:...so moderate a left-winger as Bananaistan...
by Uan aa Boa » Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:23 am
Liberimery wrote:This legislation does not answer when an association of two or more individuals of like mind becomes a legal person.
by Liberimery » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:01 pm
by Uan aa Boa » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:36 pm
by Uan aa Boa » Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:53 pm
by Liberimery » Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:11 pm
by Uan aa Boa » Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:04 pm
by Kenmoria » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:11 am
by Uan aa Boa » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:27 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Under the mandates clause b, could you add age and profession to the list of the protected characteristics. The former because of ageism, and the latter because, at least historically, any job considered “immodest” was liable to huge persecution. Also, could you number your active clauses please.)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement