Advertisement
by Thetopia » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:31 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:02 am
Thetopia wrote:Would this prevent Nations from pushing propaganda in schools and else where? I feel like that could become a very difficult grey area if so considering one could argue that it's not technically outlawing a belief, but simply teaching one that is more favorable, albeit technically by force/fear tactics. Not to mention I assume National Sovereignty would play some part as well, but that's just a guess coming from a rebuilding nation.
OOC (I guess?): Did I do it right?
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:48 am
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:50 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:24 am
by Araraukar » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:58 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Presumably it advances civil rights in a significant fashion. The NS site statisticians are generally mum on their rationales.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:10 pm
Araraukar wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Presumably it advances civil rights in a significant fashion. The NS site statisticians are generally mum on their rationales.
OOC: Reason I asked Sanct is because FMRI scans aside, it's unenforceable (because the only realworld application would be some totalitarian regime and people not buying into the official truth or whatever, and if the ruling regime was willing to go to such lengths, they could loophole this thing to death and compliance committee wouldn't be able to do anything) and thus meaningless (hence not meriting more than Mild strength), beyond what CoCR already does. If they saw something in it that's more than you've been able to explain - and which the proposal itself does not do - it would have been interesting to get their POV.
by Sanctaria » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:51 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:09 pm
by Lord Dominator » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:28 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:01 am
by Marxist Germany » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:02 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:07 am
by Marxist Germany » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:13 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:No consensus has emerged as to whether we ought stop calling out IC responses to OOC statements. Ms Mortimer Wellesley isn't in the committee chamber.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:24 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:28 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:04 pm
by Aprenencia » Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:06 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The sentence at the top of the OP is the entire proposal.
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:10 pm
Wallenburg wrote:This has absolutely no material effect on anyone. Useless laws get voted down.
by Aprenencia » Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:11 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:12 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:23 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: Reason I asked Sanct is because FMRI scans aside, it's unenforceable (because the only realworld application would be some totalitarian regime and people not buying into the official truth or whatever, and if the ruling regime was willing to go to such lengths, they could loophole this thing to death and compliance committee wouldn't be able to do anything) and thus meaningless (hence not meriting more than Mild strength), beyond what CoCR already does. If they saw something in it that's more than you've been able to explain - and which the proposal itself does not do - it would have been interesting to get their POV.
"I imagine not. If nothing else, it allows a totalitarian regime to jail citizens and dissenters on more than just whim. Which, in the case of many tyrannical governments, is often valuable. Many despots, being lawfully evil, adhere to the law, tyrannical though it is.
"More to the point, it certainly prevents not-yet-tyrannical governments from getting into the business of thought control in the first place. Regime change is often followed by a crackdown on civil liberties to restabilize, even when, or perhaps especially when, the new regime deposes the old one in the name of freedom and liberty."
OOC: I can't help but think of how much longer the Reign of Terror would have gone on if the Committee of Public Safety was able to substitute genuine evidence for the public trials instead of just banning the submission of evidence. It would have been a lot harder for the people to topple Robespierre and Friends if the Committee could demonstrate actual proof to the people of their victim's counterrevolutionary beliefs. It strikes me that Louis XVI's trial would have been even less just, too. Or any religious or political inquisition, from Torquemada to McCarthy. This has merit.
Between that and deferring to the eminent wisdom of those with firsthand knowledge of the code, I'd say the strength is acceptable. I suspect that, given public input from an IE on the strength, GenSec would defer to that.
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:25 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:16 pm
Wallenburg wrote:The moment that an individual's thoughts are communicated to another person, they become expression. We already have a resolution protecting free expression.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement