NationStates

"Regretfully the People's Republic of Bananaistan must oppose as currently stated. Society has a legitimate interest in controlling the expression of businesses advertising problematic goods and services such as alcohol and gambling which are not clearly "seriously damaging to health and safety". SOme nations also do not allow ambulance chasers to advertise. Furthermore, a nation could reasonably wish to completely prohibit all advertising aimed at children.

"Ultimately we do not see that organisation's commercial speech is worthy of the WA's attention."

- Ted

I'm sorry to hear that, as I have always valued the contribution of Bananaistan, and of the Democratic Socialist Assembly in general. I fully share your concerns, but I don't believe a resolution that allowed a total restriction of commercial expression would be palatable to the Assembly as a whole. I would certainly be open to amending to permit a ban on advertising aimed at minors.

Turning to your other points I would contend that alcohol is seriously damaging to health and safety. Gambling would be better looked at in terms of regulating its more problematic forms rather than merely allowing nations to unilaterally prevent them from being advertised. Ambulance chasing would similarly be better addressed through nations having legal systems in which it is not a profitable activity for lawyers to engage in in the first place.

Short of offering no protection at all to commercial expression, is there anything that can be done that would secure your support?

“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

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

Giving nations carte blanche over advertising would gut the proposal.

Aclion wrote:

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

Giving nations carte blanche over advertising would gut the proposal.

"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

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.

Bananaistan wrote:

Aclion wrote:Giving nations carte blanche over advertising would gut the proposal.

"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.

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.

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.

EDIT: I noticed you edited your comment. But rather than take a step back and look at your petty statement in a more sober lens, you simply decided to reword it to be just as rude as the original. It's a shame.

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.

OOC: I won't bother getting offended by this but you would be well advised to play the ball rather than the man. It would be better form that slinging personal insults around.

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.

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.

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.

And no these sorts of comments are not flaming, nor are they flame bait. The mods have made that very clear to me when I reported similar comments by members of gensec directed at me.

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.

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 on Bananaistan so why would it's ambassador even bother getting involved in the debate?

I have raised legitimate IC criticisms of the proposal which you as co-author refuse to address, instead setting up strawmen about my own RL views and IC reasons for opposition. Zone 71 is correct when saying that your petty comments will only harm the proposal.

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.

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.

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.

OOC: Yet only alcohol and gambling advertising aimed at children could be restricted by member states. Nor could legal firms ambulance chasing be restricted. Day time advertising of toys etc aimed at children? Also completely unrestricted. Prescription drugs? I could go on and on.

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.

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.

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.

OOC: Just no. That's not how GAR#27 is or has even been interpreted by anyone.

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.

Nope. There is a forth allowed restriction. 4)the expression is not protected as free expression for individuals
You assume that if a form of expression is not specifically forbidden by the proposal then it is protected as expression. This is not true, and shows you do not understand the proposals mandate. Because this resolution extends the rights enjoyed by individuals to groups, but does not establish any right to expression itself, a form of expression is only protected for groups under this resolution if it is already recognized as free expression for individuals.
Thus, for example; a corporation in Aclion would not be allowed to issue threats against people. Even though this doesn't fall under any of the exceptions in this proposal this regulation of expression is still permitted because no WA resolution requires us to allow individuals to issue threats.

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.

The proposal only restricts double standards in the regulation of expression. The restrictions on advertising are only severe if there is a pervasive double standard in your nation surrounding advertising law.

I would like to disassociate myself from the insulting behaviour of my co-author. It's completely out of place in a constructive drafting discussion and profoundly unhelpful to the proposal. Clearly a distaste for corporate personhood in no way equates to ignorant nationalism. I would also like to acknowledge that Bananaistan's reading of the situation with regard to advertising is entirely correct. Protecting Free Expression places no meaningful limitations on advertising directed at children and this proposal does create a significant right to advertise.

Frankly I have watered down this proposal very considerably in order to accommodate Aclion, whose compromise in return is to interpret any reservations as "an ideological objection to the very idea that businesses should be allowed to exist" and a bizarre assertion that allowing the regulation of advertising would "gut the proposal." Enough is enough. Being called out in this way by so moderate a left-winger as Bananaistan has made me realise what I should have faced up to some time ago. Aclion's only substantive contribution was the preamble. I intend to take a couple of days out and then redraft with my own preamble and the other provisions I had originally intended to include.

My apologies again for the unpleasantness.

If you believe my co authorship is harmful to the proposal then you have my permission to use any of my contributions without attribution. I would caution you however, against making changes that would compromise the purpose of the legislation, especially changes that would sacrifice potential supporters in order to please a nation that has stated opposition to the proposal regardless.

I will oppose this legislation on the grounds that it is biting off more than it can chew. This legislation does not answer when an association of two or more individuals of like mind becomes a legal person. We will not support any resolution that restricts any political speech be it the voice of the many or the voice of the one.

The definition of commercial speech should be a restriction only on a sale of products, goods, and services and in doing such, it must me made in such a way that it does not make false claims to the benefit of entering a transaction for such product.

Any attempts to silence the loudest voice will silence the softest as well. And it is the firmly held belief of my government that there is nothing lost from more speech.

Uan aa Boa wrote:...so moderate a left-winger as Bananaistan...

Rev. Sullivan chuckles.

Liberimery wrote:This legislation does not answer when an association of two or more individuals of like mind becomes a legal person.

Actually it does. It says that a legal person is an entity that has rights and obligations in law. So if you and your friend go for a beer and talk about politics then you're not a legal person. If you set up the Campaign for Unlimited Free Speech, which can publish leaflets, have a website, rent an office, receive donations, employ people and so forth then CUFS becomes a legal person at the point that your nation's legal system recognises it. Precisely how that works will vary from nation to nation.

And then my voice can be silenced with respect to my political speech? The allowance for more restrictions on political speech for those who wish to speak with a collective voice essentially robs the individual within the subset of voice unless they choose to engage in speech outside of the association. We again will oppose any legislation that allows for a backdoor to existing free speech protections.

No, then your voice is protected. As it stands, CUFS has no rights at all. With this resolution it has the same rights you do as an individual. There are some narrow exceptions that wouldn't apply to a political campaign.

OK, the new draft is up. Hopefully it's simpler and more robust than before.

Regarding the new clauses on holocaust denial and incitement of hatred, I believe this will work well alongside Protecting Free Expression because together they prevent member nations legislating against hate speech by individuals in private discussion but allow governments that so desire to treat organised incitement to hatred as a more serious matter.

What legitimate purpose does the banning of people who are hateful from public speech and organization? The public has a right to know that these people exist? If we ban the speaking of the idea, do we kill the idea? Through history, banned ideologies have revived stronger support over time because of the allure of being forbidden fruit. They are insulated internally from critics and thus have no ability to stop the extremists from taking it over. And it becomes harder to "deprogram" those who hold to banned ideals. Those holding to a banned ideal cling to it because they feel victimized by those who banned them... and feel that they must be in the right because society will not tell them they are wrong. The only answer yo Speech which you disagree with is to better your argument.

If you're opposed to such restrictions this resolution won't force them on you. The question is left to the discretion of individual nations. It seems to me, however, that a nation such as Germany, in which particular historical factors apply, should be able to control Holocaust denial if it so chooses.

I should stress, however, that restrictions on incitement of hatred don't ban the presentation or debate of any idea or exclude any person. They restrict exactly what they say - incitement of hatred. An idea that can't be expounded without that would really be a pretty vile idea.

(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.)

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.)

Sorry, but I'm definitely not including profession. It would be wholly inappropriate to stop a comedian ranting about politicians, bankers or traffic wardens. I'd need a lot of persuading to include age as well. I'm not taking all the categories from anti-discrimination law here, I'm focused on serious hate speech. Give me examples if you'd like, but I'm not aware of the elderly being significantly on the receiving end of what LGBT+ people or immigrants are more often subjected to.