NationStates

1. Not taking for granted totalitarianism in many nations, and aiming to bring end to the oppression of political dissidents, and bringing freedom of expression to nations

2. Realizing that some speech may be hateful, offensive, or otherwise just distasteful or obscene,

3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

We resolve

1. (A) To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant,
(B) but excluding speech that directly calls for immediate violence, or that threatens immediate and direct illegal violence, this will be constructed to include an exemption for direct and immediate harassment

2. (A) Ordering, that groups that may be considered hateful be afforded the full protection of the law, including the right to express their opinions, and be protected while doing so, at no cost to themselves, (this shall include counter protesters), no matter how hateful,
(B) but once again, excluding speech that is a direct and immediate call to violence or calling for immediate illegal activity,
(C) The definition of hate speech for this resolution shall be:
‘speech that is mean, unpleasant, offensive, repugnant, obscene, hateful speech and that is directed at a protected characteristic, specifically speech that is: homophobic, sexist, misogynist, racist, ect

(A) We mandate the repeal of all hate speech laws, in all nations, (B) this repeal shall exclude any world assembly legislation
(C) except for laws which pertain to direct immediate calls for direct and immediate unlawful violence, (D) this shall include yelling fire in a crowded theater

OOC:
No.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
No.

Why?

What is so bad about freedom of speech?

No surrender ever wrote:

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
No.

Why?

What is so bad about freedom of speech?

OOC:
First of all, don't even pretend to frame this as a freedom of speech issue. You know as well as I that it's nothing of the sort.

Second, as a member of a group that hate speech is frequently spoken about, some bigoted piece of shit going on a transphobic rant actively threatens my life.

Tinfect wrote:

No surrender ever wrote:
Why?

What is so bad about freedom of speech?

OOC:
First of all, don't even pretend to frame this as a freedom of speech issue. You know as well as I that it's nothing of the sort.

Second, as a member of a group that hate speech is frequently spoken about, some bigoted piece of shit going on a transphobic rant actively threatens my life.

This is a issue about freedom of speech, proof that it is not?

Any suggestions on formatting?

Tinfect wrote:

No surrender ever wrote:
Why?

What is so bad about freedom of speech?

OOC:
First of all, don't even pretend to frame this as a freedom of speech issue. You know as well as I that it's nothing of the sort.

Second, as a member of a group that hate speech is frequently spoken about, some bigoted piece of shit going on a transphobic rant actively threatens my life.

OOC: 1. This is a fictional draft of legislation that will only apply to fictional counties, assuming that it will ever be passed at all.
2. Some bigot going on a rant doesn't automatically threaten your life, and this resolution can be amended to exclude direct threats of violence.

No surrender ever wrote:We resolve

1. To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant

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

No surrender ever wrote:This is a issue about freedom of speech, proof that it is not?

OOC:
It isn't about freedom of speech when its about your freedom of speech to say 'gas the k***s'.

No surrender ever wrote:Any suggestions on formatting?

Delete the entire draft.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:OOC: 1. This is a fictional piece of legislation that applies to fictional counties.

Annnnd?

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:2. Some bigot going on a rant doesn't automatically threaten your life, and this resolution can be amended to exclude direct threats of violence.

Hate speech leads directly to violence. Some motherfucker shouting about how transwomen are men and pedophiles and should be forced into mental hospitals leads to transwomen getting denied medical care, abused, raped, and straight up fucking murdered.

No surrender ever wrote:1. Recognizing that freedom of speech, including hate speech, is fundamental to any democratic society

"Not all societies in NationStates are democratic, despite what some nations would like to believe."

No surrender ever wrote:3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

"As I mentioned above, not all nations are democratic. Freedom of speech is not considered an essential human right in many countries. Additionally, clauses one and three are essentially the same thing, simply reworded."

No surrender ever wrote:1. To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant

"Even the most hateful and repugnant? What about anti-semites in a predominantly Semitic nation? It seems absurd to say that hate speech is considered a 'hallmark to a democratic society,' as you put it. Furthermore, what exactly constitutes hate speech? Would the organization of a coup be considered hate speech? Is it only hateful language towards that of a minority group? Is it yelling 'fire' in a theatre? A definition of hate speech would be nice for this proposal to see exactly what it is legislating."

No surrender ever wrote:3. We mandate The repeal of all hate speech laws

"This sounds like you are repealing current World Assembly legislation. I'd reword this."

"Overall, this is a rather poor resolution. Perhaps you could make it passable by creating all sorts of exceptions to the legislation, but it just seems to be more trouble than it is worth. This should be put up to each nation to decide, not legislated by international law."

Tinfect wrote:Hate speech leads directly to violence. Some motherfucker shouting about how transwomen are men and pedophiles and should be forced into mental hospitals leads to transwomen getting denied medical care, abused, raped, and straight up fucking murdered.

[OOC: Tinfect, come on. You're smarter than this, mate. Cool down and take a look at the context of who posted this draft.]

Tinhampton wrote: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).

Elyreia wrote:

Tinhampton wrote: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 you in the jaw a few dozen times with a baseball bat).

"That's what the criminal code is for."

OOC: Tinfect, I totally get where you're coming from, but it looks like this is about to teeter into the land of General. Perhaps we can haul it back on track?

Separatist Peoples wrote:-snips-

OOC: Completely the reason I edited to use "them" in my post because I was using a general "you" not a specific "you the author", and didn't want to drag this conversation into personal attacks.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"That's what the criminal code is for."

And that's entirely on me and accepting my consequences for doing that act. So long as everyone is willing to accept the possible consequences of their actions, free speech covers hate speech just fine.

Please check out the new edit (Edit #1)

1. Recognizing that freedom of speech is fundamental to any democratic society

2. Realizing that some speech may be hateful, offensive, or otherwise just distasteful or obscene,

3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

We resolve

1. (A) To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant,
(B) but excluding speech that directly calls for immediate violence, or that threatens illegal violence, this will be constructed to include an exemption for harassment

Ordering, that groups that may be considered hateful be afforded the full protection of the law, including the right to express their opinions, and be protected while doing so, no matter how hateful,
(B) but once again, excluding speech that is a direct call to immediate violence or immediate illegal activity,

We mandate The repeal of all hate speech laws, except for those which pertain to direct calls for violence.

No surrender ever wrote:Please check out the new edit (Edit #1)

1. Recognizing that freedom of speech is fundamental to any democratic society

2. Realizing that some speech may be hateful, offensive, or otherwise just distasteful or obscene,

3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

We resolve

1. (A) To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant,
(B) but excluding speech that directly calls for immediate violence, or that threatens illegal violence, this will be constructed to include an exemption for harassment

Ordering, that groups that may be considered hateful be afforded the full protection of the law, including the right to express their opinions, and be protected while doing so, no matter how hateful,
(B) but once again, excluding speech that is a direct call to immediate violence or immediate illegal activity,

We mandate The repeal of all hate speech laws, except for those which pertain to direct calls for violence.

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

Already covered by GA#436 "Protecting Free Expression.".

The legislation that was already passed does not say anything about exempting hate speech from being protected.

As such, your legislation is needlessly redundant. Elyreia stands opposed.

No surrender ever wrote:Please check out the new edit (Edit #1)

1. Recognizing that freedom of speech is fundamental to any democratic society

2. Realizing that some speech may be hateful, offensive, or otherwise just distasteful or obscene,

3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

We resolve

1. (A) To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant,
(B) but excluding speech that directly calls for immediate violence, or that threatens illegal violence, this will be constructed to include an exemption for harassment

Ordering, that groups that may be considered hateful be afforded the full protection of the law, including the right to express their opinions, and be protected while doing so, no matter how hateful,
(B) but once again, excluding speech that is a direct call to immediate violence or immediate illegal activity,

We mandate The repeal of all hate speech laws, except for those which pertain to direct calls for violence.

Edit your most recent draft into the Original post. The first thing people should see when they go onto this thread is your most current draft.

Please check out the new edit (Edit #2):

1. Not taking for granted totalitarianism in many nations, and aiming to bring end to the oppression of political dissidents, and bringing freedom of expression to nations

2. Realizing that some speech may be hateful, offensive, or otherwise just distasteful or obscene,

3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

We resolve to:

1. (A) To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant,
(B) but excluding speech that directly calls for immediate violence, or that threatens illegal violence, this will be constructed to include an exemption for harassment

2. Ordering, that groups that may be considered hateful be afforded the full protection of the law, including the right to express their opinions, and be protected while doing so, no matter how hateful,
(B) but once again, excluding speech that is a direct call to violence or illegal activity,
(C) The definition of hate speech for this resolution shall be:
‘speech that is mean, unpleasant, offensive, repugnant, obscene, hateful speech and that is directed at a protected characteristic, specifically speech that is: homophobic, sexist, misogynist, racist, ect

(A) We mandate the repeal of all hate speech laws, in all nations, this repeal shall exclude any world assembly legislation
(B) except for laws which pertain to direct calls for violence, (C) this shall include yelling fire in a crowded theater

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Tinfect wrote:
OOC:
First of all, don't even pretend to frame this as a freedom of speech issue. You know as well as I that it's nothing of the sort.

Second, as a member of a group that hate speech is frequently spoken about, some bigoted piece of shit going on a transphobic rant actively threatens my life.

OOC: 1. This is a fictional draft of legislation that will only apply to fictional counties, assuming that it will ever be passed at all.
2. Some bigot going on a rant doesn't automatically threaten your life, and this resolution can be amended to exclude direct threats of violence.

Amended as requested.

Morover wrote:

No surrender ever wrote:1. Recognizing that freedom of speech, including hate speech, is fundamental to any democratic society

"Not all societies in NationStates are democratic, despite what some nations would like to believe."

No surrender ever wrote:3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

"As I mentioned above, not all nations are democratic. Freedom of speech is not considered an essential human right in many countries. Additionally, clauses one and three are essentially the same thing, simply reworded."

No surrender ever wrote:1. To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant

"Even the most hateful and repugnant? What about anti-semites in a predominantly Semitic nation? It seems absurd to say that hate speech is considered a 'hallmark to a democratic society,' as you put it. Furthermore, what exactly constitutes hate speech? Would the organization of a coup be considered hate speech? Is it only hateful language towards that of a minority group? Is it yelling 'fire' in a theatre? A definition of hate speech would be nice for this proposal to see exactly what it is legislating."

No surrender ever wrote:3. We mandate The repeal of all hate speech laws

"This sounds like you are repealing current World Assembly legislation. I'd reword this."

"Overall, this is a rather poor resolution. Perhaps you could make it passable by creating all sorts of exceptions to the legislation, but it just seems to be more trouble than it is worth. This should be put up to each nation to decide, not legislated by international law."

Amended as requested mostly.

No surrender ever wrote:We resolve to:

I suspect you might still be running into a brick wall with GA#436 here. I'd be surprised if this proposal can still be salvaged.

Tinhampton wrote:

No surrender ever wrote:We resolve to:

I suspect you might still be running into a brick wall with GA#436 here. I'd be surprised if this proposal can still be salvaged.

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.

Elyreia wrote:Already covered by GA#436 "Protecting Free Expression.".

The legislation that was already passed does not say anything about exempting hate speech from being protected.

As such, your legislation is needlessly redundant. Elyreia stands opposed.

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.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

No surrender ever wrote:Please check out the new edit (Edit #1)

1. Recognizing that freedom of speech is fundamental to any democratic society

2. Realizing that some speech may be hateful, offensive, or otherwise just distasteful or obscene,

3. Recognizing that the protection of the most provocative and hateful speech is a hallmark to a democratic society

We resolve

1. (A) To mandate that all nations protect all forms of speech, even the most hateful and repugnant,
(B) but excluding speech that directly calls for immediate violence, or that threatens illegal violence, this will be constructed to include an exemption for harassment

Ordering, that groups that may be considered hateful be afforded the full protection of the law, including the right to express their opinions, and be protected while doing so, no matter how hateful,
(B) but once again, excluding speech that is a direct call to immediate violence or immediate illegal activity,

We mandate The repeal of all hate speech laws, except for those which pertain to direct calls for violence.

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.

No surrender ever wrote:

Elyreia wrote:Already covered by GA#436 "Protecting Free Expression.".

The legislation that was already passed does not say anything about exempting hate speech from being protected.

As such, your legislation is needlessly redundant. Elyreia stands opposed.

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:
1: You don't need to make three posts to make the same comment word-for-word.
2: You need a minimum of two endorsements to submit a resolution.
3: Equal protection under the law is already enshrined in the WA.]