[DRAFT] Protecting Journalistic Freedom

[Partisan Italy]

5. Prohibits member states from preventing the press from reporting on any story without a compelling safety or security reason, to which a prohibition on reporting would be the easiest or most effective response; The State cannot use the safety or security reason exception to prevent the press from reporting on this matters:
a) Violations of human rights
b) Crimes against humanity
c) Illegal activities - with regard to national or international law - involving state officials

“The issue is that such blanket prohibitions could very quickly become counterproductive. If the government of a member nation is trying to gather more evidence before arresting a corrupt official, then a newspaper reporting on said corruption before any evidence has been gathered would be very unhelpful.”

You are right on the c) point. Another formulation could be:
"c) Illegal activities - with regard to national or international law - involving state officials, except in the case in which the journalistic activity could cause damage to the conduct of investigations by the judiciary."

[Kenmoria]

5. Prohibits member states from preventing the press from reporting on any story without a compelling safety or security reason, to which a prohibition on reporting would be the easiest or most effective response; The State cannot use the safety or security reason exception to prevent the press from reporting on this matters:
a) Violations of human rights
b) Crimes against humanity
c) Illegal activities - with regard to national or international law - involving state officials

“The issue is that such blanket prohibitions could very quickly become counterproductive. If the government of a member nation is trying to gather more evidence before arresting a corrupt official, then a newspaper reporting on said corruption before any evidence has been gathered would be very unhelpful.”

You are right on the c) point. Another formulation could be:
"c) Illegal activities - with regard to national or international law - involving state officials, except in the case in which the journalistic activity could cause damage to the conduct of investigations by the judiciary."

“How would a journalist know whether secret investigations are taking place? They’re observant, not omniscient.”

[Partisan Italy]

“How would a journalist know whether secret investigations are taking place? They’re observant, not omniscient.”

A legal investigation cannot be entirely secret: it requires at least a warranty notice. If you are talking about secret investigations by secret services, that are secrets because their activities are usually illegal, it's the responsibility of the secret service keeping journalists away.
In any way it is the responsibility of authorities to evaluate if a journalistic activity can demage investigations and to keep journalists away.

[Kenmoria]

“How would a journalist know whether secret investigations are taking place? They’re observant, not omniscient.”

A legal investigation cannot be entirely secret: it requires at least a warranty notice. If you are talking about secret investigations by secret services, that are secrets because their activities are usually illegal, it's the responsibility of the secret service keeping journalists away.
In any way it is the responsibility of authorities to evaluate if a journalistic activity can demage investigations and to keep journalists away.

“This seems to be something that would differ by jurisdiction and locality, and therefore not suited to GA law. I think that your suggestion would be best implemented at a national level, since it is always possible for member states to provide additional freedoms to journalists.”

[Christian Democrats]

4. Obligates that member nations do not disallow any person directly associated with the press of a member nation or member nations from entering their borders, provided that the entry is solely for legitimate journalistic purposes, and that the person would not be barred entry due to quarantine, a criminal record, or any other compelling safety purpose wholly unrelated to their status as a member of the press

Why should members of the press have special privileges over other individuals who wish to travel abroad?

9. Mandates that the press do not deliberately spread information that they know to be definitely untrue, not including opinion pieces

So this proposal would require member states to criminalize conduct that they might currently permit, thus reducing freedom of the press in those nations?

[Partisan Italy]

Why should members of the press have special privileges over other individuals who wish to travel abroad?

It is because journalists are essential to guarantee the right of all human beings to access all sorts of informations from every corner of the world. This work is fundamental in a world that is global and interconnected.

[Kenmoria]

4. Obligates that member nations do not disallow any person directly associated with the press of a member nation or member nations from entering their borders, provided that the entry is solely for legitimate journalistic purposes, and that the person would not be barred entry due to quarantine, a criminal record, or any other compelling safety purpose wholly unrelated to their status as a member of the press

Why should members of the press have special privileges over other individuals who wish to travel abroad?

(OOC: As Partisan Italy said, members of the press undertake vital work that is crucial to an interconnected and informed world. Ordinarily holidaymakers are not performing such duties and therefore shouldn’t have such privileges.

9. Mandates that the press do not deliberately spread information that they know to be definitely untrue, not including opinion pieces

So this proposal would require member states to criminalize conduct that they might currently permit, thus reducing freedom of the press in those nations?

In nations where this would have a significant impact, the press would not be performing their journalistic duties correctly, and therefore the press as a whole might suffer disbelief. For an analogy to this situation, see America’s current distrust of the media. In a country where the press are actually spreading lies, this distrust would presumably be worse, to the extent that the free press as a whole suffers.)

[Veniyerris]

Mandates that the press do not deliberately spread information that they know to be definitely untrue, not including opinion pieces; and

This seems unenforceable, perhaps prohibiting *intent* to publish false information would be more effective?

[Christian Democrats]

Why should members of the press have special privileges over other individuals who wish to travel abroad?

(OOC: As Partisan Italy said, members of the press undertake vital work that is crucial to an interconnected and informed world. Ordinarily holidaymakers are not performing such duties and therefore shouldn’t have such privileges.

Yes, but what about business travelers, pilgrims, researchers, or students? Who's the WA to tell nations which travelers to prioritize?

So this proposal would require member states to criminalize conduct that they might currently permit, thus reducing freedom of the press in those nations?

In nations where this would have a significant impact, the press would not be performing their journalistic duties correctly, and therefore the press as a whole might suffer disbelief. For an analogy to this situation, see America’s current distrust of the media. In a country where the press are actually spreading lies, this distrust would presumably be worse, to the extent that the free press as a whole suffers.)

It's not the WA's place to mandate censorship of the press, especially in a proposal titled "Protecting Journalistic Freedom."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: As Partisan Italy said, members of the press undertake vital work that is crucial to an interconnected and informed world. Ordinarily holidaymakers are not performing such duties and therefore shouldn’t have such privileges.

Yes, but what about business travelers, pilgrims, researchers, or students? Who's the WA to tell nations which travelers to prioritize?

(OOC: Though those groups of people are no doubt important, they don’t fall under the purview of this proposal. If someone wants to write a piece of legislation guaranteeing the rights of pilgrims to access holy sites, or researchers to gain entry to places of scientific interest, then that’s great. This proposal specifically focuses on journalists, and the compelling reason that journalists should be afforded access to member states.

In nations where this would have a significant impact, the press would not be performing their journalistic duties correctly, and therefore the press as a whole might suffer disbelief. For an analogy to this situation, see America’s current distrust of the media. In a country where the press are actually spreading lies, this distrust would presumably be worse, to the extent that the free press as a whole suffers.)

It's not the WA's place to mandate censorship of the press, especially in a proposal titled "Protecting Journalistic Freedom."

I have come up with a different approach in the latest draft, which removes this proposal’s protections for newspapers that have been involved in misinformation, rather than enacting a prohibition.)

[Maowi]

OOC: I don't know if this is a thing IRL for some reason, but why should it be any better to knowingly spread misinformation in an opinion piece than anywhere else? Giving your take on an issue, sure, but saying things you are fully aware to be untrue?

It also seems excessive to remove these protections from any news organisation that has EVER spread misinformation, regardless of completed or ongoing efforts to improve reporting.

[Christian Democrats]

It's not the WA's place to mandate censorship of the press, especially in a proposal titled "Protecting Journalistic Freedom."

I have come up with a different approach in the latest draft, which removes this proposal’s protections for newspapers that have been involved in misinformation, rather than enacting a prohibition.)

That's substantially more acceptable!

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I don't know if this is a thing IRL for some reason, but why should it be any better to knowingly spread misinformation in an opinion piece than anywhere else? Giving your take on an issue, sure, but saying things you are fully aware to be untrue?

It also seems excessive to remove these protections from any news organisation that has EVER spread misinformation, regardless of completed or ongoing efforts to improve reporting.

(OOC: That was a wording error, I meant to exclude opinions rather than opinion pieces. The second feedback I will try to address, but it could be challenging to do so without providing member states too much room to misinterpret.)