NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:06 pm**

Freedom of Expression for Organisations

Category: Furtherance of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Uan aa Boa

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming the right of individuals to express themselves freely without fear of reprisal from the state,

Aware that protecting this right counts for little if governments are able to censor political parties, arts organisations, campaigns, civil rights groups, publishers, internet service providers, web hosts and other entities that are not individuals,

Believing that nations should, if they choose, be able to limit the influence of corporations, and of those organisations that seek to promote hatred,

Hereby,

Defines a legal person to be an entity other than an individual that has rights or obligations in law,

Mandates that member states shall extend to legal persons the same rights in regard to free expression as they afford individuals, save that they may impose reasonable restrictions on the free expression of legal persons in order to prevent
disproportionate influence on government by profit-making organisations and those acting under their direction, or on their behalf
incitement of hatred on the basis of race, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender reassignment
denial of historical acts of genocide
Reserves to member states the right to regulate advertising as they see fit, subject to the provisions of prior and unrepealed resolutions,

Clarifies that, for the purpose of this resolution, a reasonable restriction on free expression is one that does not limit expression in significantly more circumstances than is necessary to achieve its legitimate objective,

Emphasises that this resolution does not prevent the regulation of campaign finance or other donations to political organisations
.

Freedom of Expression for Organisations

Category: Furtherance of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Uan aa Boa

The World Assembly,

Applauding protections granted to individuals to express their opinions, and to assemble with others to pursue common goals,

Aware that most individuals do not have the resources to pursue these goals without acting in cooperation with others,

Knowing that legal persons such as political parties, campaign groups, community associations, and other collective entities are thus essential for giving a voice to individuals,

Aware that unrestricted freedom of expression for legal persons can lead to misleading advertising, unwelcome corporate influence on politics, and other negative consequences,

Determined that no person shall be denied access to the public forum,

Hereby,

Makes, for the purposes of this resolution, the following definitions:
A legal person is an entity other than a sapient individual that has rights or obligations in law
Commercial expression is expression intended to promote the purchase of products or services
Political expression is expression intended to influence either the policy and decisions of a national or sub-national government, or public opinion regarding such matters
A reasonable restriction on the commercial or political expression of legal persons is one that does not limit expression in significantly more circumstances than is necessary to achieve its legitimate objective

Resolves that the free expression of legal persons in member nations shall be protected to the same extent, and may be subject to the same restrictions, as the free expression of individuals, save that
Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the commercial expression of legal persons in order to regulate false or misleading information, the promotion of products known to be seriously damaging to health and safety, and the exposure of individuals below the age of majority to the promotion of products and services that are restricted on the grounds of age
Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons in order to prevent disproportionate influence on government by profit-making organisations and those acting under their direction, or on their behalf

Clarifies that this resolution does not prevent the regulation of campaign finance or other donations to political organisations.

Co-authored by Aclion

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:47 pm**

Pollution Inc makes a non-profit corporation, Citizens for a Cleaner Telemachia LLC. Pollution Inc gives CfCT LLC a trillion New Sterling. CfCT LLC uses those funds to lobby MPs and bribe Ministers. Your proposal says I can't do anything about that.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:39 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Pollution Inc makes a non-profit corporation, Citizens for a Cleaner Telemachia LLC. Pollution Inc gives CfCT LLC a trillion New Sterling. CfCT LLC uses those funds to lobby MPs and bribe Ministers. Your proposal says I can't do anything about that.

I think preventing for-profit corporations from creating and funding puppet companies in order to bypass reasonable restrictions on corporate lobbying would itself be a reasonable restriction. That is if you even accept that bribery is a form of political expression.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:35 pm**

What you just said isn't what the proposal says.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:48 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:What you just said isn't what the proposal says.

b. Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons that are not non-profit organisations in order to prevent undue corporate influence on the political process.

What you described can be prevented under this.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:57 pm**

Is giving someone money expression?

Posted: **Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:53 am**

OOC: I don't think for profit corporations, political groups, and unincorporated not-for-profit organisations should be dealt with in the one proposal.

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:01 am**

First edit: I have added clauses to the preamble that were provided by Aclion, who will in likelihood end up as a co-author if this goes forward. I have also refined the definition of a non-commercial organisation to prevent companies acting through subsidiaries.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I don't think for profit corporations, political groups, and unincorporated not-for-profit organisations should be dealt with in the one proposal.

I'd be interested in your suggestions. The problem is that it's difficult to draw a clear distinction between them, especially since corporates can use subsidiaries and fund other organisations.

Posted: **Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:04 am**

Bump, just to stay on the front page.

Posted: **Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:31 am**

I would also change the title to Freedom of Expression for Collective Entities

I know that there are plenty of people who will vote no just in reaction to the word corporations.

Also typo(I think it's mine) clause 4 of the preamble says collective entity when it should say collective entities.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:02 am**

Edits made. The title has been shortened so that fits. I've removed any reference to the distinction between commercial and non-commercial organisations, believing it to be implicit in the idea of restrictions being intended to prevent undue commercial influence. Also, clarification added regarding campaign finance.

I'm held up at this point by a lack of progress with proposals on free expression for individuals.

Posted: **Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:30 am**

I will be basically inactive in the WA for the next 2 weeks or so. During this time, I give Aclion permission to take this draft forward if it's threatened by a rival draft that contradicts it and, if necessary, to submit it citing me as co-author.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:45 am**

With UM's proposal looking sure to pass I'd like some more comments before this is submitted.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:24 pm**

Aclion wrote:With UM's proposal looking sure to pass I'd like some more comments before this is submitted.

Yes indeed. Suddenly however, there's the latest attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms and there's Holocaust denial too, so we may have to wait. Popcorn?

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:07 pm**

Uan aa Boa wrote:
Aclion wrote:With UM's proposal looking sure to pass I'd like some more comments before this is submitted.

Yes indeed. Suddenly however, there's the latest attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms and there's Holocaust denial too, so we may have to wait. Popcorn?

I'm not submitting my repeal any time soon/

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:34 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Uan aa Boa wrote:Yes indeed. Suddenly however, there's the latest attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms and there's Holocaust denial too, so we may have to wait. Popcorn?

I'm not submitting my repeal any time soon/

But you're hogging all the malcontents D:

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:22 am**

Bump. Planning to submit in the near future, so speak now or forever hold your peace.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:46 pm**

Could you give a hypothetical situation for section b.) of the resolution. I wish to understand the intent.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:56 pm**

Liberimery wrote:Could you give a hypothetical situation for section b.) of the resolution. I wish to understand the intent.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Pollution Inc makes a non-profit corporation, Citizens for a Cleaner Telemachia LLC. Pollution Inc gives CfCT LLC a trillion New Sterling.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:10 pm**

Why does one of those lists use numbers and the other letters?

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:24 pm**

Liberimery wrote:Could you give a hypothetical situation for section b.) of the resolution. I wish to understand the intent.

Sure. That section permits governments to restrict the political expression of the corporate sector, whether that takes the form of corporations lobbying politicians directly or appealing over their heads to public opinion. Oil producers and car manufacturers might want to dissuade the government from promoting hybrid and electrical cars by means of tax breaks and funding R&D. An industry struggling to compete with imports might want to persuade the government to introduce protective tariffs. The chemical industry might want to reduce environmental regulations. They'd most commonly do this by paying professional lobbyists to work on influencing politicians but they might also pay for political advertising to the public, whether online or on TV or by surrounding filling stations with bill boards warning of the threat to the motorist posed by the government's plans (to use one example).

The concern is that if this kind of corporate behaviour goes unchecked the most persuasive people will be the ones with the most money at their disposal, rather than the ones with the best argument. The transport industry coming together to promote new motorways will run a much more effective campaign than an association of people whose houses are slated for demolition. The intention of this proposal is to allow governments to level the playing field if they choose to.

Wallenburg wrote:Why does one of those lists use numbers and the other letters?

No particular reason. It can be changed.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:47 pm**

You shouldn't be using the term "regional government" in your proposal. If you wish to refer to governments below the central government, you should use another term, such as "local government," "municipal government," "provincial government," or "subnational government."

Also, I hope that you'll include Oxford commas in the final draft that you submit.

Finally, I recommend that you amend this clause with the following change:

Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of ~~legal persons~~ business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:01 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:You shouldn't be using the term "regional government" in your proposal. If you wish to refer to governments below the central government, you should use another term, such as "local government," "municipal government," "provincial government," or "subnational government."

Also, I hope that you'll include Oxford commas in the final draft that you submit.

Thanks. I'll probably go with "national or subnational government"

Finally, I recommend that you amend this clause with the following change:

Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of ~~legal persons~~ business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.

I believe this would allow corporations to lobby through subsidiaries which are not themselves corporations. I agree with you that the other groups you list should not be subject to restrictions, and the stipulation that any restrictions should be reasonable and in order to prevent undue commercial influence is intended to protect them.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:02 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of ~~legal persons~~ business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.

Hmm, how do you expect that will change the effect of the clause in practice, given that the allowance stipulates commercial influence ?

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:07 pm**

Uan aa Boa wrote:
Finally, I recommend that you amend this clause with the following change:

Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of ~~legal persons~~ business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.

I believe this would allow corporations to lobby through subsidiaries which are not themselves corporations. I agree with you that the other groups you list should not be subject to restrictions, and the stipulation that any restrictions should be reasonable and in order to prevent undue commercial influence is intended to protect them.

I fear that the term "commercial influence" could be construed in an overbroad manner. For example, a national government could prohibit the campaign advertisements of an environmental group -- e.g., tell your legislators to vote in favor of the carbon tax bill -- on the theory that such advertisements would have an undue and negative influence on national commerce.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Freedom of Expression for Organisations

[DEFEATED] Freedom of Expression for Organisations