DRAFT: Protection of Hate Speech

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Again, you should look at GAR#436.

My resolution goes much further, the already passed resolution mentioned, does not mandate that the state protect speech, only that it does not interfere with it. My resolution would go further, for example, requiring that the police protect a hate groups rally.

OOC: No, your proposal is illegal for duplication. You have to repeal GAR#436 before you can replace the topic.

[No surrender ever]

This proposal will never get off the ground. GA#436 "Protecting Free Expression."

I feel the need to quote this for the author of the current resolution.

Also, as stated, Free Speech covers Hate Speech. It just doesn't cover the private consequences (i.e. me clocking them in the jaw a few dozen times with a baseball bat).

My resolution goes much further, the already passed resolution mentioned, does not mandate that the state protect speech, only that it does not interfere with it. My resolution would go further, for example, requiring that the police protect a hate groups rally.

Therefore, my resolution would protect hate groups, i.e, my resolution makes the state protect hate groups from violence. My resolution would also protect the government jobs of members of hate groups. My resolution requires nations to facilitate hateful speech. I.e. providing equal government platforms to them, on the same basis as other groups. For example, the government could not deny A hate group the ability to speak at a public university or hold a rally there, they would have to allow a rally/meeting/speech at no cost, and protect the event, at no cost as well. The government would also be required to protect that group, at no cost. Also, if a hateful speaker came to a public university, The government would be required to protect that speaker, at no cost.

[Tinhampton]

*snip tincan grumbling*

My resolution goes much further, the already passed resolution mentioned, does not mandate that the state protect speech, only that it does not interfere with it. My resolution would go further, for example, requiring that the police protect a hate groups rally.

Your proposal places prohibitions on activities that GA#436 only requests that "reasonable restrictions" may be applied upon. As it stands, it is unwieldy, unworkable, inferior to extant legislation and in any case likely to get ROFLstomped at vote. Note also GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly" which already prohibits assembly organised for the purposes of seeking violence. Besides, many terms in this resolution are not defined - what is a "protected characteristic" or "yelling fire in a crowded theater" for those of us not familiar with the (RealWorldStates) Equality Act 2010 and First Amendment regulations respectively?

---

...requiring that the police protect a hate groups rally.

Therefore, my resolution would protect hate groups, i.e, my resolution makes the state protect hate groups from violence.

GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly."

My resolution would also protect the government jobs of members of hate groups. My resolution requires nations to facilitate hateful speech. I.e. providing equal government platforms to them, on the same basis as other groups. For example, the government could not deny A hate group the ability to speak at a public university or hold a rally there, they would have to allow a rally/meeting/speech at no cost, and protect the event, at no cost as well. The government would also be required to protect that group, at no cost. Also, if a hateful speaker came to a public university, The government would be required to protect that speaker, at no cost.

Even if they were a member of Generic Hate Group #85024, which seeks the overthrow of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ government by any means necessary? Are you attempting to advocate that police officers be placed on zero wage in order to defend people that hate their guts?

[Elyreia]

As stated previously, this proposal is a duplicate of other resolutions that cover the same exact topics. Just that in this case Hate Speech is explicitly called out. The equivalent would be me proposing a new resolution that requires all Elyreians to be afforded the same rights as other sentient beings. "Elyreian" may not be explicitly stated in the CoCR, but we are implicitly covered.

In the same way, previous legislation already implicitly covers Hate Speech, by explicitly covering All Speech.

Elyreia opposes redundant and needless legislation.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"What is 'hate speech?'" the ambassador looked perplexed; "Is it like...speech that some people don't like?"

[Greater vakolicci haven]

My resolution goes much further, the already passed resolution mentioned, does not mandate that the state protect speech, only that it does not interfere with it. My resolution would go further, for example, requiring that the police protect a hate groups rally.

Your proposal places prohibitions on activities that GA#436 only requests that "reasonable restrictions" may be applied upon. As it stands, it is unwieldy, unworkable, inferior to extant legislation and in any case likely to get ROFLstomped at vote. Note also GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly" which already prohibits assembly organised for the purposes of seeking violence. Besides, many terms in this resolution are not defined - what is a "protected characteristic" or "yelling fire in a crowded theater" for those of us not familiar with the (RealWorldStates) Equality Act 2010 and First Amendment regulations respectively?

---

...requiring that the police protect a hate groups rally.

Therefore, my resolution would protect hate groups, i.e, my resolution makes the state protect hate groups from violence.

GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly."

My resolution would also protect the government jobs of members of hate groups. My resolution requires nations to facilitate hateful speech. I.e. providing equal government platforms to them, on the same basis as other groups. For example, the government could not deny A hate group the ability to speak at a public university or hold a rally there, they would have to allow a rally/meeting/speech at no cost, and protect the event, at no cost as well. The government would also be required to protect that group, at no cost. Also, if a hateful speaker came to a public university, The government would be required to protect that speaker, at no cost.

Even if they were a member of Generic Hate Group #85024, which seeks the overthrow of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ government by any means necessary? Are you attempting to advocate that police officers be placed on zero wage in order to defend people that hate their guts?

"The Havenic government..." he tried to work out the correct words "Already has such protection in its own domestic law. Nobody can be fired for a political opinion, and these 'hate groups' seem like violent political groups, we don't have the term of hate group in the Haven. Political violence is expression, and so it is protected under Havenic law. The proposer should advocate that his nation joins the Haven if he wishes to be part of a body protecting all expression."

[Elyreia]

Political violence is expression, and so it is protected under Havenic law.

A queer system, ambassador. In Elyreia, political violence is curtailed. Each House is responsible for the protection of their citizens, both the protesters and those opposed to them. Violence is dealt with quickly and harshly.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Political violence is expression, and so it is protected under Havenic law.

A queer system, ambassador. In Elyreia, political violence is curtailed. Each House is responsible for the protection of their citizens, both the protesters and those opposed to them. Violence is dealt with quickly and harshly.

"In the Haven, we fight regularly for our views. We don't have regular civil wars, but armed clashes are common."

[Elyreia]

"In the Haven, we fight regularly for our views. We don't have regular civil wars, but armed clashes are common."

Assaulting an Elyreian beyond a fist brawl will land them in a court and, if serious enough, a court martial. All Elyreians are reservists, after all.

[Iciaros]

"Having read the proposal and the arguments set forth by my fellow ambassadors, my Empress has instructed me to oppose this resolution should it reach the World Assembly floor. The position of our leadership is that already existing resolutions will suffice to protect speech to a reasonable extent. My further opinion is that hate speech is not worth protecting, but that is merely the point of view of a humble ambassador and not a royal decree."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Protecting hatespeech has nothing to do with criticizing governments - and yes, government officials should be protected from hatespeech as private citizens in terms of ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

Why should hatespeech be protected? Like, give me one good reason beyond "because I want to say nasty things and not get in trouble".

[Iciaros]

OOC: Protecting hatespeech has nothing to do with criticizing governments - and yes, government officials should be protected from hatespeech as private citizens in terms of ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

Why should hatespeech be protected? Like, give me one good reason beyond "because I want to say nasty things and not get in trouble".

(OOC: I suppose the justification would be on the grounds of inherent rights, like 'no one should have the right to decide what I can or cannot say'. It's kind of a basic, extreme stance on the idea of freedom of speech, and it most likely falls under the 'rights as trumps' school of thought, where one's fundamental right (presuming one accepts the ability to say anything as a fundamental right) cannot be abrogated for any reason other than another competing and directly affected fundamental right. No amount of other interest, goods, or indirectly-affected rights would suffice, no matter how disastrous or compelling.

It's... well, yeah, it's a very extreme way of looking at it.)

[KhanterWinters]

"Your freedom ends, when starts the other freedom"
Therefore there is not 100% freedom, because there is something called respect.
OOC and IC, hateful comments are part of freedom of speech? Yes, but you cannot protect something that potentially can harm other.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

OOC: Protecting hatespeech has nothing to do with criticizing governments - and yes, government officials should be protected from hatespeech as private citizens in terms of ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

Why should hatespeech be protected? Like, give me one good reason beyond "because I want to say nasty things and not get in trouble".

This crosses the OOC-IC line, because the Havenic view, and that of me IRL is the same.
Hate speech should be protected because it is speech, and all speech should be so protected. I don't distinguish.

[Blueflarst]

The freedom of speech is only wanted by the left for themselves when some conversative uses it is hate speech i am a hater which would turn down a lot of sexual minorities rights but for them this is hate

[Nyasantara]

The government of the People's Republic of Nyasantara categorically rejects and completely opposes the proposal that hate speech be protected. Hate Speech, by definition, is speech that is made to deliberately target members of marginalized, oppressed and disenfranchised peoples. We see no reason why hateful people should be given a platform, let alone protection, to air their harmful views to the rest of society. Homophobia, transphobia, misogyny and racism must not be encouraged but be stamped out entirely. The People's Government will continue its efforts to uplift and amplify the voices of the downtrodden and marginalized in all policy and in our guiding ideology.

[Karteria]

"Even if this was made legal, we categorically oppose. Hate speech has no place in a democratic system, and should have no place anywhere for that matter."

[LiberNovusAmericae]

"What is 'hate speech?'" the ambassador looked perplexed; "Is it like...speech that some people don't like?"

IC: "Hate speech originally meant inciting hatred against a group of people based on their race, religion, sexuality, etc" the Ambassador states. "However in some circumstances the term has been misused. Real hate speech - though abhorrent - should be protected either way, but we believe that sufficient legislation is already in place."

[Grug Island]

Protect hate speech all you want
Nothing protect you from Grug

[Maowi]

I think GAR 436 is sufficient for this issue: why would we need to actively protect hate speech? Of course, if people attack hate speakers that's still illegal (at least in Maowi) but there's no need to provide extra protection. As it stands, against.

[Grays Harbor]

Who decides what “hate speech” is? All too frequently it is used as a political weapon where “dissent” is equated to “hate” by both ruling and opposition. This is how you create political prisoners. It is also used as a justification for stifling debate.

Is what we want really this? Where all debate and dissent is forbidden because somebody from the other side says it is “hate”? Do we want every word to become “hate” because somebody somewhere is offended by it?

[Arasi Luvasa]

OOC: Protecting hatespeech has nothing to do with criticizing governments - and yes, government officials should be protected from hatespeech as private citizens in terms of ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

Why should hatespeech be protected? Like, give me one good reason beyond "because I want to say nasty things and not get in trouble".

This crosses the OOC-IC line, because the Havenic view, and that of me IRL is the same.
Hate speech should be protected because it is speech, and all speech should be so protected. I don't distinguish.

My government would disagree with you. Your rights end where they infringe on the rights of others and hate-speech enters that category. It is why I am so annoyed that there hasn't been more anger about "Umishimiwam" or whatever that song is called being sung by public officials.

[Hiram Land]

i will never support this, EVEN IF THIS GETS INTO VOTE, IM VOTING NO. HATE SPEECH IS HORRIBLE, DISCRIMINATORY, AND NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[Havari]

Have my fellow representatives ever heard of the "paradox of tolerance"? It is a theory set out by Karl Marx that a completely tolerant society, one that allows every kind of speech- including hate speech- will not remain tolerant for long. Allowing bigotry to go unpunished means it will take root and grow like a weed until it spreads. In order to truly promote tolerance, one must offer no stage for hate speech.
The proposed law would only protect those seeking to do harm to marginalized peoples, and would do nothing to promote freedom of speech.

[Hatzisland]

OOC: This plans seems informally written, and could potentially get struck down because of it. Please work on improving the layout of the plan.

ICC: The Nation of Hatzisland is in full support of this plan.