General Assembly Q&A

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Is there legislation against murder in the GA?

I really hope there is, but there is an amazing opportunity if there isn't.

Nope. Not remotely an international issue.

I find it to be kind of disgusting we don't legislation on it.

I am going to make a proposal out of it.

[Tinfect]

I find it to be kind of disgusting we don't legislation on it.

I am going to make a proposal out of it.

There's... literally no reason to, but, good luck?

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I find it to be kind of disgusting we don't legislation on it.

I am going to make a proposal out of it.

There's... literally no reason to, but, good luck?

Thanks - nobody likes murder!

[Araraukar]

There's... literally no reason to, but, good luck?

Thanks - nobody likes murder!

The issue is that since all reasonable nations would already have criminalized murder, there's no need to make an international law that says the same. So it's not really an international issue.

[Falcania]

There's... literally no reason to, but, good luck?

Thanks - nobody likes murder!

Define "murder".

[Araraukar]

Define "murder".

Leave that for their actual thread.

[Dykez]

Hi,

I was recently appointed as the World Assembly Delegate for my region, though I'm quite new to NationStates and especially new to the World Assembly and being the delegate for my entire region. What should I do/know to get started, and is there any reading someone could suggest on this topic?

Thanks greatly.

[Falcania]

Hi,

I was recently appointed as the World Assembly Delegate for my region, though I'm quite new to NationStates and especially new to the World Assembly and being the delegate for my entire region. What should I do/know to get started, and is there any reading someone could suggest on this topic?

Thanks greatly.

Welcome to the fun world of delegacy! There are now two extra ways you can influence the World Assembly.

Firstly, proposals. Every WA member may submit a proposal. The proposals must be approved by 6% of regional delegates, which at time of posting is 78 of 1,299. You are now one of that 1,299 and have the opportunity to approve proposals before they reach the voting floor.

Secondly, when proposals do reach the voting floor, a delegate gets one vote, plus one vote for each endorsement they have. Nine nations in my region have endorsed me, so my vote in the World Assembly counts as 10 votes.

[Bears Armed]

The proposals must be approved by 6% of regional delegates, which at time of posting is 78 of 1,299. You are now one of that 1,299 and have the opportunity to approve proposals before they reach the voting floor.

Please note, however, that many of the proposals submitted are actually 'illegal' under the GA's rules and precedents, so it might be a good idea for you to read the proposal-writing rules (which are in another sticky in this forum) before deciding which proposals to approve...


(Edited to fix a typo.)

[Saranidia]

Is it against WA Law to
1.Criminalise adultery

2. fund computer hackers against enemy nations

3. Criminalise the charging of interest either entirely or beyond a certain rate

4. Have conscription

5. Explicitly license for profit groups or people to raid the ships of one's enemies in wartime

6. create other international law via treaty and applying solely to the parties of the treaty(EG
if a group agreed to follow certain environmental standards and have a court for enforcing them)

7. Criminalise hate speech

8.
have obscenity laws?

[Separatist Peoples]

Is it against WA Law to
1.Criminalise adultery

2. fund computer hackers against enemy nations

3. Criminalise the charging of interest either entirely or beyond a certain rate

4. Have conscription

5. Explicitly license for profit groups or people to raid the ships of one's enemies in wartime

6. create other international law via treaty and applying solely to the parties of the treaty(EG
if a group agreed to follow certain environmental standards and have a court for enforcing them)

7. Criminalise hate speech

8.
have obscenity laws?

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No

[Saranidia]

Is it against WA Law to
1.Criminalise adultery

2. fund computer hackers against enemy nations

3. Criminalise the charging of interest either entirely or beyond a certain rate

4. Have conscription

5. Explicitly license for profit groups or people to raid the ships of one's enemies in wartime

6. create other international law via treaty and applying solely to the parties of the treaty(EG
if a group agreed to follow certain environmental standards and have a court for enforcing them)

7. Criminalise hate speech

8.
have obscenity laws?

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No

which one bans hacking and which one bans criminalising hate speech?

[Separatist Peoples]

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No

which one bans hacking and which one bans criminalising hate speech?

The Passed resolutions thread contains all resolutions that the GA ever passed. Take a look there.

[Araraukar]

which one bans hacking and which one bans criminalising hate speech?

The Passed resolutions thread contains all resolutions that the GA ever passed. Take a look there.

Hate speech criminalizing on national level isn't actually banned.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Passed resolutions thread contains all resolutions that the GA ever passed. Take a look there.

Hate speech criminalizing on national level isn't actually banned.

Protecting Free Expression bans limits on speech not outlines in an exception. Hate speech is not an exception.

[Araraukar]

Protecting Free Expression bans limits on speech not outlines in an exception. Hate speech is not an exception.

Definition 1.d., clause 2.a, 2.c, and 2.d. Hatespeech can be banned.

[Separatist Peoples]

Protecting Free Expression bans limits on speech not outlines in an exception. Hate speech is not an exception.

Definition 1.d., clause 2.a, 2.c, and 2.d. Hatespeech can be banned.

Defamation is not hate speech. It is false speech.

Hate speech does not, by virtue of being hate speech, harm civilian or military health. That clause clearly pertains to operational security.

Hate speech not banned.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:
   
   1. "free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,
   2. "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,

How would someone saying "all gays are pedophiles" would NOT fall under that?

Also, 2.c. "an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness" annd 2.d. "a threat to civilian or military health or safety" - someone saying how all [group X] should be killed or raped or any of the usual stuff hatespeech is about, fits both of those. "Operational security" isn't written anywhere in the resolution.

Ergo, hatespeech can be banned.

Million edits because I fail at coding.

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:
   
   1. "free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,
   2. "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,

How would someone saying "all gays are pedophiles" would NOT fall under that?

Also, 2.c. "an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness" annd 2.d. "a threat to civilian or military health or safety" - someone saying how all [group X] should be killed or raped or any of the usual stuff hatespeech is about, fits both of those. "Operational security" isn't written anywhere in the resolution.

Ergo, hatespeech can be banned.

Million edits because I fail at coding.

Because that isn't what defamation is. Maliciously looking to harm the reputation of a group does not extend to merely expressing opinions. You can say you think all gays are pedophiles. You cannot say Dean Martin is a pedophile. One is defamatory. The other is not.

A threat to military or civilian safety is clearly a question of operational security, since the clause is designed to prevent people from spreading information that is nonpublic essential for security. There is no reason to specifically separate "military" without a reference to the specific kind of safety at question.

Nor either is hatespeach inherently an invitation to lawlessness, since one can claim that, going back to our example, that all gays are pedophiles without inciting your listeners to violence. Indeed, you could even say that all gays need to die without crossing into the realm of inciting violence, because you aren't necessarily saying that your listeners need to enact the apparently desirable outcome you're calling for.

[Saranidia]

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:
   
   1. "free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,
   2. "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,

How would someone saying "all gays are pedophiles" would NOT fall under that?

Also, 2.c. "an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness" annd 2.d. "a threat to civilian or military health or safety" - someone saying how all [group X] should be killed or raped or any of the usual stuff hatespeech is about, fits both of those. "Operational security" isn't written anywhere in the resolution.

Ergo, hatespeech can be banned.

Million edits because I fail at coding.

Because that isn't what defamation is. Maliciously looking to harm the reputation of a group does not extend to merely expressing opinions. You can say you think all gays are pedophiles. You cannot say Dean Martin is a pedophile. One is defamatory. The other is not.

A threat to military or civilian safety is clearly a question of operational security, since the clause is designed to prevent people from spreading information that is nonpublic essential for security. There is no reason to specifically separate "military" without a reference to the specific kind of safety at question.

Nor either is hatespeach inherently an invitation to lawlessness, since one can claim that, going back to our example, that all gays are pedophiles without inciting your listeners to violence. Indeed, you could even say that all gays need to die without crossing into the realm of inciting violence, because you aren't necessarily saying that your listeners need to enact the apparently desirable outcome you're calling for.

Definitions of defamation might include expressing "opinions" that are factually not true for example "all gays are paedophiles" or "Sadiq khan supports ISIS. I guess it is a matter of judicial interpretation.

Also threat to military or civilian health or safety is quite a broad exception.

[Separatist Peoples]

Because that isn't what defamation is. Maliciously looking to harm the reputation of a group does not extend to merely expressing opinions. You can say you think all gays are pedophiles. You cannot say Dean Martin is a pedophile. One is defamatory. The other is not.

A threat to military or civilian safety is clearly a question of operational security, since the clause is designed to prevent people from spreading information that is nonpublic essential for security. There is no reason to specifically separate "military" without a reference to the specific kind of safety at question.

Nor either is hatespeach inherently an invitation to lawlessness, since one can claim that, going back to our example, that all gays are pedophiles without inciting your listeners to violence. Indeed, you could even say that all gays need to die without crossing into the realm of inciting violence, because you aren't necessarily saying that your listeners need to enact the apparently desirable outcome you're calling for.

Definitions of defamation might include expressing "opinions" that are factually not true for example "all gays are paedophiles" or "Sadiq khan supports ISIS. I guess it is a matter of judicial interpretation.

Also threat to military or civilian health or safety is quite a broad exception.

Defamation has a very particular meaning. If it included just what was factually untrue, all children who answer wrongly in school are committing defamation. Or asserting legal arguments that are clearly wrong. Like now.

[WA Kitty Kops]

Defamation has a very particular meaning.

Yes, and it's spelled out in the resolution: "[Defines] "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,".

I know you're about to be a lawyer in Real Life, but this is NS, here we go by the definitions as they're written in the resolutions. (That's what you're basing your argument in the labeling discussion on, after all.)

Also, I know I'm on the wrong account, but cba hop...

[Separatist Peoples]

Defamation has a very particular meaning.

Yes, and it's spelled out in the resolution: "[Defines] "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,".

I know you're about to be a lawyer in Real Life, but this is NS, here we go by the definitions as they're written in the resolutions. (That's what you're basing your argument in the labeling discussion on, after all.)

Also, I know I'm on the wrong account, but cba hop...

Ara, you of all people are in no position to explain how this game works. Let alone to me.

Even under that definition, claims that are hate speech do not maliciously injure the reputation of the individual. Hate speech against groups does not implicate individual reputation.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, and it's spelled out in the resolution: "[Defines] "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,".

I know you're about to be a lawyer in Real Life, but this is NS, here we go by the definitions as they're written in the resolutions. (That's what you're basing your argument in the labeling discussion on, after all.)

Also, I know I'm on the wrong account, but cba hop...

Ara, you of all people are in no position to explain how this game works. Let alone to me.

Even under that definition, claims that are hate speech do not maliciously injure the reputation of the individual. Hate speech against groups does not implicate individual reputation.

The difference between individuals and groups here is irrelevant, as both of them are equally protected under that clause.

[WA Kitty Kops]

The difference between individuals and groups here is irrelevant, as both of them are equally protected under that clause.

Exactly.