[PASSED] Wartime Journalism Protection Act

[Araraukar]

OOC: If I'm reading it right, clause 6 prohibits journalists from reporting stuff that can lead to loss of life, it doesn't say anything about where the person can go. This means a journalist can follow the stealth mission since her reporting of it later wouldn't cause any loss of life.

OOC: I think stuff like this might fall under the espionage exception.

OOC: Not if the journalist themselves does not do any spying.

[Maowi]

OOC: I think stuff like this might fall under the espionage exception.

OOC: Not if the journalist themselves does not do any spying.

OOC: If they're following a stealth mission, and thus obtaining secret information, does that not qualify as spying? And if for some reason it doesn't, I'm not sure what the issue is, as they can't report or communicate any of that information. Also not sure what you mean by "the journalists themselves" because I'm not seeing where this would allow people other than journalists to follow on.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Not if the journalist themselves does not do any spying.

OOC: If they're following a stealth mission, and thus obtaining secret information, does that not qualify as spying? And if for some reason it doesn't, I'm not sure what the issue is, as they can't report or communicate any of that information. Also not sure what you mean by "the journalists themselves" because I'm not seeing where this would allow people other than journalists to follow on.

OOC: Even if the journalist doesn't report a anything sensitive or anything at all, him/her following the stealth mission will greatly increase the risk of the cover being blown and the mission meeting a catastrophic failure. Again, its not the reporting that would cause the failure (and presumably loss of life) but the person following the mission.

[Maowi]

OOC: If they're following a stealth mission, and thus obtaining secret information, does that not qualify as spying? And if for some reason it doesn't, I'm not sure what the issue is, as they can't report or communicate any of that information. Also not sure what you mean by "the journalists themselves" because I'm not seeing where this would allow people other than journalists to follow on.

OOC: Even if the journalist doesn't report a anything sensitive or anything at all, him/her following the stealth mission will greatly increase the risk of the cover being blown and the mission meeting a catastrophic failure. Again, its not the reporting that would cause the failure (and presumably loss of life) but the person following the mission.

OOC: I guess I see what you mean, although I think it would still qualify as espionage. Still, it probably wouldn't do any harm to make thoroughly sure that issue doesn't arise just by tweaking the language maybe in clauses 5 & 6.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium will remind you that this legislation continues to allow civilians to intentionally place themselves in harms way, and risk the lives of Military Personnel in doing so."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Also not sure what you mean by "the journalists themselves" because I'm not seeing where this would allow people other than journalists to follow on.

OOC: Singular "they". One journalist. I've gotten snarked at when I've used "theirself" instead of "themselves" despite the latter in my mind being a plural and the former a singular.

And if they were following around spies doing spy work, even if the journalist did no spy work, like Ardiveds said, their mere presence would put the spies in danger. It still wouldn't be spying by the journalist. Nor would their reporting be the issue, just their presence.

[Foril]

OOC: Also not sure what you mean by "the journalists themselves" because I'm not seeing where this would allow people other than journalists to follow on.

OOC: Singular "they". One journalist. I've gotten snarked at when I've used "theirself" instead of "themselves" despite the latter in my mind being a plural and the former a singular.

And if they were following around spies doing spy work, even if the journalist did no spy work, like Ardiveds said, their mere presence would put the spies in danger. It still wouldn't be spying by the journalist. Nor would their reporting be the issue, just their presence.

Do you have a suggestion on how we can word that?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Singular "they". One journalist. I've gotten snarked at when I've used "theirself" instead of "themselves" despite the latter in my mind being a plural and the former a singular.

And if they were following around spies doing spy work, even if the journalist did no spy work, like Ardiveds said, their mere presence would put the spies in danger. It still wouldn't be spying by the journalist. Nor would their reporting be the issue, just their presence.

Do you have a suggestion on how we can word that?

(OOC: You could add something to clause 5 about that, along the lines of preventing journalists from following individuals if said following might pose a risk to sapient beings or military actions. Alternatively, you could expand clause 9 to cover this prohibition. On another note, you currently have two clause 9s.)

[Foril]

Do you have a suggestion on how we can word that?

(OOC: You could add something to clause 5 about that, along the lines of preventing journalists from following individuals if said following might pose a risk to sapient beings or military actions. Alternatively, you could expand clause 9 to cover this prohibition. On another note, you currently have two clause 9s.)

Fixed.

[Foril]

Alright, unless there are any other significant comments I’m hoping to submit on the 15th. Comments appreciated!!

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

"Carrying weapons for self defense" methinks can not be enforced properly, ambassador. There is nothing from stopping a Soviet journalist, say, a man named Dimitri Pushanov, from carrying an AK-12 into the warzone for "self defense". We recommend a clear outline of weapons allowed to be carried by journalists in warzones or not allowing weapons at all.

(OOC: Edit, misspelling.)

[Foril]

"Carrying weapons for self defense" methinks can not be enforced properly, ambassador. There is nothing from stopping a Soviet journalist, say, a man named Dimitri Pushanov, from carrying an AK-12 into the warzone for "self defense". We recommend a clear outline of weapons allowed to be carried by journalists in warzones or not allowing weapons at all.

(OOC: Edit, misspelling.)

How about we outline that journalists can carry weapons, but cannot threaten or harm other people unless they are being harmed physically?

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

"Carrying weapons for self defense" methinks can not be enforced properly, ambassador. There is nothing from stopping a Soviet journalist, say, a man named Dimitri Pushanov, from carrying an AK-12 into the warzone for "self defense". We recommend a clear outline of weapons allowed to be carried by journalists in warzones or not allowing weapons at all.

(OOC: Edit, misspelling.)

How about we outline that journalists can carry weapons, but cannot threaten or harm other people unless they are being harmed physically?

Again, ambassador, there is a possible loophole that has been used before. A journalist could feel threatened by an innocent man or woman in a warzone, and shoot at them, or a belligerent could shoot at the journalist thinking they are an enemy. I think it would be best if journalists could not carry weapons inside warzones, for both the safety of civilians and the journalists alike, or if the weapon clauses is kept, forbidding weapons over a certain caliber or size to be used.

[Foril]

How about we outline that journalists can carry weapons, but cannot threaten or harm other people unless they are being harmed physically?

Again, ambassador, there is a possible loophole that has been used before. A journalist could feel threatened by an innocent man or woman in a warzone, and shoot at them, or a belligerent could shoot at the journalist thinking they are an enemy. I think it would be best if journalists could not carry weapons inside warzones, for both the safety of civilians and the journalists alike, or if the weapon clauses is kept, forbidding weapons over a certain caliber or size to be used.

Edited.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

Again, ambassador, there is a possible loophole that has been used before. A journalist could feel threatened by an innocent man or woman in a warzone, and shoot at them, or a belligerent could shoot at the journalist thinking they are an enemy. I think it would be best if journalists could not carry weapons inside warzones, for both the safety of civilians and the journalists alike, or if the weapon clauses is kept, forbidding weapons over a certain caliber or size to be used.

Edited.

And with that last fix, you have my support.

[Foril]

Edited.

And with that last fix, you have my support.

Thank you!

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

And with that last fix, you have my support.

Thank you!

My pleasure, ambassador.

The Soviet ambassador returns to his seat.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: There's some clumsy wording throughout the proposal (had hoped to get around to helping you with it today, but right now that doesn't look like it's going to happen), and also, instead of defining "safe zone", howabout the only clause using it instead just say they must leave the war zone?

[Foril]

OOC: There's some clumsy wording throughout the proposal (had hoped to get around to helping you with it today, but right now that doesn't look like it's going to happen), and also, instead of defining "safe zone", howabout the only clause using it instead just say they must leave the war zone?

Fixed the latter. In regards to the former, if you have the time do point it out

[Potted Plants United]

OOC post. The clumsy language combing as promised.

NOTING that there currently isn't a World Assembly resolution to protect wartime journalists,

This may be just nitpicking, but this would look more formal (that is, more something you might find in a law text), if it was instead worded as "Noting that currently there are no World Assembly resolutions protecting wartime journalists" - making the resolutions plural is optional, if you want singular, just change "are" to "is" and drop the plural s from resolution. Also, "noting" sounds too neutral, you should go for "concerned" or "alarmed" or similar.

CONCERNED that wartime journalists are currently without legal protection,

You already say this in the previous clause, and given you don't know everyone's RP reality, there might well be legal protections for them on national basis or even international non-WA basis, so dropping this would serve you best.

HORRIFIED that some wartime journalists are getting wounded, kidnapped, or even killed while at battlefronts,

Drop "some", use "may get" instead of "are getting", and since you use "war zone" later on, use that here instead of the vague "battlefronts". I would also add something about them getting wounded etc. while doing their job, a.k.a. acting as wartime journalists. Because if they're just civilians wandering into a war zone without a legitimate reason to be there, they're taking a known risk of something bad happening to them.

SEEKING to give protection to wartime journalists in order for better protection of lives and better information,

I'd reword this as "Seeking to protect wartime journalists with an international agreement on their treatment". Leave the better protection of lives and information out of it entirely.

Hereby enacts the following:

You can just use "Hereby," and you should really end all clauses with a comma or semicolon - basically, make the whole thing read like one huge sentence to make it flow better.

1. "War zone" in this resolution is defined as an area in which military acts of war are ongoing.

2. "Journalistic activities" in this resolution is defined as actions, such as taking notes of events in the war, interviewing local people and the military in the location of the war, and taking photographs or videos of the war scene, taken for the purpose of lawfully publicising in the media information about ongoing war.

3. "Wartime journalist" in this resolution is defined as a civilian, wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone. Individuals that commit espionage shall not be considered wartime journalists.

These would be better rewritten as:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. a "war zone" as an area in which acts of war are ongoing,
   
   
2. "journalistic activities" as actions, such as collecting information about the events of a war, interviewing local people and military personnel in the war zone, or taking photographs or videos of the war, for the purpose of lawfully publicising them in the media,
   
   
3. a "wartime journalist" as a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone;

2. Clarifies that individuals who commit espionage shall not be considered wartime journalists,

Do note word, grammar and punctuation changes. I don't really like the "undertaking" in definition c., but the only other word I can think of would be "engaging in", and while that would sound better to my ear, you might want to ask some grammar wizard like Kenmoria to weigh in on that one. If you use these edits, remember to renumber your clauses from here forwards.

4. Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement throughout war zones, and must not be stopped unless trespassing on private property. This is subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

Use "in" instead of "throughout", because the latter implies them having to be allowed into top secret meetings and such, where no journalist would reasonably be allowed. The "must not be stopped" becomes problematic if they're about to walk into a minefield or into an area where a nuke is about to be dropped, or one that's got dangerous levels of radiation, etc. Additionally the same problem of places banned to journalists in any realistic situation. Also, reword the last bit as "as allowed by previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions" and don't make it a freestanding sentence.

5. Wartime journalists may report on any material concerned with the war unless the release of the material is likely to lead to loss of or harm to life and/or property, or to a significant jeopardisation of military efforts, subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

"On any material concerned with the war" sounds just wrong. Maybe "on any event to do with the war"? And make it "release of the information". Also, not entirely certain, but I'd put a comma after "loss of". Rather than tagging the "subject to previous, etc." everywhere, howabout making it a separate clarifies clause near or at the end of the proposal? That way you could nix it as repetition from the other clauses.

7. Wartime journalists may only stay in a war zone for as long as the journalistic activity or activities they are undertaking requires, and must leave said war zone after undertaking these.

This is especially one where the "undertaking" becomes problematic, because a military commander disliking journalists running around could take one look at the definition, and decide a single action from it would count as undertaking the journalism, and then kick them out of the war zone. What is this clause meant to achieve? Any reasonable person wouldn't remain in an active war zone beyond what's needed, but wartime journalists might decide to stay for the duration of the war to continue reporting. I would remove this clause entirely.

8. Wartime journalists may not physically interrupt the fighting, nor may they enter or pass through any location if doing so may lead to loss or harm of life, or to a significant jeopardisation of military efforts.

Remove "physically", and I'd use "active combat situations" instead of "the fighting". Remove "a" before "significant", because efforts is plural. Also, given the "loss or harm of life" (which should read "loss of or harm to life" or even more likely "loss of life or harm to someone" or something like that), this clause would allow banning them access to active war zones entirely, which would create an internal contradiction with clause 4.

9. Individuals violating clauses 6, 7, or 8 of this resolution do not qualify for the protections in this resolution, although they shall receive no further penalty as a direct result of this resolution.

Put "found" before "violating" and change the number list to "any clause of this resolution", since there's no reason to exclude them from any of it. What does the "no further penalty" part mean?

[Foril]

OOC post. The clumsy language combing as promised.

NOTING that there currently isn't a World Assembly resolution to protect wartime journalists,

This may be just nitpicking, but this would look more formal (that is, more something you might find in a law text), if it was instead worded as "Noting that currently there are no World Assembly resolutions protecting wartime journalists" - making the resolutions plural is optional, if you want singular, just change "are" to "is" and drop the plural s from resolution. Also, "noting" sounds too neutral, you should go for "concerned" or "alarmed" or similar.

CONCERNED that wartime journalists are currently without legal protection,

You already say this in the previous clause, and given you don't know everyone's RP reality, there might well be legal protections for them on national basis or even international non-WA basis, so dropping this would serve you best.

HORRIFIED that some wartime journalists are getting wounded, kidnapped, or even killed while at battlefronts,

Drop "some", use "may get" instead of "are getting", and since you use "war zone" later on, use that here instead of the vague "battlefronts". I would also add something about them getting wounded etc. while doing their job, a.k.a. acting as wartime journalists. Because if they're just civilians wandering into a war zone without a legitimate reason to be there, they're taking a known risk of something bad happening to them.

SEEKING to give protection to wartime journalists in order for better protection of lives and better information,

I'd reword this as "Seeking to protect wartime journalists with an international agreement on their treatment". Leave the better protection of lives and information out of it entirely.

Hereby enacts the following:

You can just use "Hereby," and you should really end all clauses with a comma or semicolon - basically, make the whole thing read like one huge sentence to make it flow better.

1. "War zone" in this resolution is defined as an area in which military acts of war are ongoing.

2. "Journalistic activities" in this resolution is defined as actions, such as taking notes of events in the war, interviewing local people and the military in the location of the war, and taking photographs or videos of the war scene, taken for the purpose of lawfully publicising in the media information about ongoing war.

3. "Wartime journalist" in this resolution is defined as a civilian, wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone. Individuals that commit espionage shall not be considered wartime journalists.

These would be better rewritten as:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. a "war zone" as an area in which acts of war are ongoing,
   
   
2. "journalistic activities" as actions, such as collecting information about the events of a war, interviewing local people and military personnel in the war zone, or taking photographs or videos of the war, for the purpose of lawfully publicising them in the media,
   
   
3. a "wartime journalist" as a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone;

2. Clarifies that individuals who commit espionage shall not be considered wartime journalists,

Do note word, grammar and punctuation changes. I don't really like the "undertaking" in definition c., but the only other word I can think of would be "engaging in", and while that would sound better to my ear, you might want to ask some grammar wizard like Kenmoria to weigh in on that one. If you use these edits, remember to renumber your clauses from here forwards.

4. Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement throughout war zones, and must not be stopped unless trespassing on private property. This is subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

Use "in" instead of "throughout", because the latter implies them having to be allowed into top secret meetings and such, where no journalist would reasonably be allowed. The "must not be stopped" becomes problematic if they're about to walk into a minefield or into an area where a nuke is about to be dropped, or one that's got dangerous levels of radiation, etc. Additionally the same problem of places banned to journalists in any realistic situation. Also, reword the last bit as "as allowed by previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions" and don't make it a freestanding sentence.

5. Wartime journalists may report on any material concerned with the war unless the release of the material is likely to lead to loss of or harm to life and/or property, or to a significant jeopardisation of military efforts, subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions.

"On any material concerned with the war" sounds just wrong. Maybe "on any event to do with the war"? And make it "release of the information". Also, not entirely certain, but I'd put a comma after "loss of". Rather than tagging the "subject to previous, etc." everywhere, howabout making it a separate clarifies clause near or at the end of the proposal? That way you could nix it as repetition from the other clauses.

7. Wartime journalists may only stay in a war zone for as long as the journalistic activity or activities they are undertaking requires, and must leave said war zone after undertaking these.

This is especially one where the "undertaking" becomes problematic, because a military commander disliking journalists running around could take one look at the definition, and decide a single action from it would count as undertaking the journalism, and then kick them out of the war zone. What is this clause meant to achieve? Any reasonable person wouldn't remain in an active war zone beyond what's needed, but wartime journalists might decide to stay for the duration of the war to continue reporting. I would remove this clause entirely.

8. Wartime journalists may not physically interrupt the fighting, nor may they enter or pass through any location if doing so may lead to loss or harm of life, or to a significant jeopardisation of military efforts.

Remove "physically", and I'd use "active combat situations" instead of "the fighting". Remove "a" before "significant", because efforts is plural. Also, given the "loss or harm of life" (which should read "loss of or harm to life" or even more likely "loss of life or harm to someone" or something like that), this clause would allow banning them access to active war zones entirely, which would create an internal contradiction with clause 4.

9. Individuals violating clauses 6, 7, or 8 of this resolution do not qualify for the protections in this resolution, although they shall receive no further penalty as a direct result of this resolution.

Put "found" before "violating" and change the number list to "any clause of this resolution", since there's no reason to exclude them from any of it. What does the "no further penalty" part mean?

I fixed most of them, but did exclude one or two where I felt the old version flowed better/made more sense.

[Foril]

I also edited some clauses due to another suggestion.

[Tinhampton]

Assistant Bianca Venkman: Here are some light editing suggestions that I've printed out for you on this sheet of paper. Note how items in this list are nested rather than clumsily written out without any indenting.

CONCERNED that there is currently no World Assembly legislation that protects wartime journalists,

HORRIFIED that wartime journalists may get wounded, kidnapped, or even killed on the frontline simply for doing their job, and

SEEKING to introduce better protections for wartime journalists to facilitate better transmission of information and better protection of lives,

HEREBY ENACTS the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "war zone" is an area in which acts of war are ongoing,
   2. "journalistic activities" are actions conducted with the express purpose of publishing them in the media; such as collecting information about the events of a war, interviewing local people and military personnel in the war zone, or taking photographs or videos of the war, and
   3. a "wartime journalist" is a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone.
2. Wartime journalists must not have their freedom of movement in war zones restricted, unless such restrictions are absolutely necessary to prevent harm to individuals or they are otherwise trespassing on private property.
3. Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a warzone, unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts.
4. The protections enumerated in Articles 2 and 3 are subject to prior and standing international law. They shall not be granted to any wartime journalist who:
   
   1. commits espionage,
   2. is carrying weapons,
   3. interrupts active combat situations,
   4. enters or passes through any location, if doing so could lead to loss of life, harm to individuals, or the jeopardisation of military efforts, or
   5. otherwise violates the provisions of this resolution.

John Bell, staffer: I helped Bianca out with the CONCERNED clause. Contractions such as "isn't" are OK in everyday speech but are cringeworthy in a piece of international legislation.

[Foril]

Assistant Bianca Venkman: Here are some light editing suggestions that I've printed out for you on this sheet of paper. Note how items in this list are nested rather than clumsily written out without any indenting.

CONCERNED that there is currently no World Assembly legislation that protects wartime journalists,

HORRIFIED that wartime journalists may get wounded, kidnapped, or even killed on the frontline simply for doing their job, and

SEEKING to introduce better protections for wartime journalists to facilitate better transmission of information and better protection of lives,

HEREBY ENACTS the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "war zone" is an area in which acts of war are ongoing,
   2. "journalistic activities" are actions conducted with the express purpose of publishing them in the media; such as collecting information about the events of a war, interviewing local people and military personnel in the war zone, or taking photographs or videos of the war, and
   3. a "wartime journalist" is a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone.
2. Wartime journalists must not have their freedom of movement in war zones restricted, unless such restrictions are absolutely necessary to prevent harm to individuals or they are otherwise trespassing on private property.
3. Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a warzone, unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts.
4. The protections enumerated in Articles 2 and 3 are subject to prior and standing international law. They shall not be granted to any wartime journalist who:
   
   1. commits espionage,
   2. is carrying weapons,
   3. interrupts active combat situations,
   4. enters or passes through any location, if doing so could lead to loss of life, harm to individuals, or the jeopardisation of military efforts, or
   5. otherwise violates the provisions of this resolution.

John Bell, staffer: I helped Bianca out with the CONCERNED clause. Contractions such as "isn't" are OK in everyday speech but are cringeworthy in a piece of international legislation.

“Foril thanks these two ambassadors from Tinhampton for their edits and suggestions. Foril has taken these suggestions in full.”

[Foril]

OOC: Added some minor wording edits, submitting on the 15th as scheduled unless someone really doesn't want me to?