[DRAFT] Upholding Journalistic Freedom in Wartime

[Kenmoria]

"I think the best compromise is to require member nations to brief Journalists on safety precautions and provide warnings of the danger they may face."

OOC: you have two clause 4, and I’d suggest prohibiting nations from ordering someone (that’s not a soldier) to wear that identification as well.

“That is something I can do, and indeed will.”

(OOC: The clause numbering error has been fixed. As for the other suggestion, there’s a problem given that a member state definitely should order a journalist to wear the correct identification. However, I have edited the clause to make the mandate more stringent.)

[Honeydewistania]

You’ve fixed it alright- now they’re both Clause 5

Anyways another suggestion - I think that property owners should not deny wartime journalists to enter their property under the orders of member nations, because as it currently reads anyone who bought their property own their own but the government forces them to deny Journalists, then its tickety boo.

[Kenmoria]

You’ve fixed it alright- now they’re both Clause 5

Anyways another suggestion - I think that property owners should not deny wartime journalists to enter their property under the orders of member nations, because as it currently reads anyone who bought their property own their own but the government forces them to deny Journalists, then its tickety boo.

(OOC: The numbering error has, I think, actually been fixed this time. I don’t know why I failed at basic arithmetic. I’m not sure what your other point is getting at; property owners aren’t forced to deny journalists and member states can’t force them to disallow journalists.)

[Honeydewistania]

You’ve fixed it alright- now they’re both Clause 5

Anyways another suggestion - I think that property owners should not deny wartime journalists to enter their property under the orders of member nations, because as it currently reads anyone who bought their property own their own but the government forces them to deny Journalists, then its tickety boo.

(OOC: The numbering error has, I think, actually been fixed this time. I don’t know why I failed at basic arithmetic. I’m not sure what your other point is getting at; property owners aren’t forced to deny journalists and member states can’t force them to disallow journalists.)

Never mind, I’ve failed at basic reading comprehension. Please carry on.


Edit: Check your 3rd and 5th clauses... again.

[Kenmoria]

Edit: Check your 3rd and 5th clauses... again.

(OOC: The numbering error has, I sincerely hope, been fully fixed at this point. I can only assume the principles of mathematics are rearranging themselves so as to justify my continued efforts on this front.)

[Honeydewistania]

Edit: Check your 3rd and 5th clauses... again.

(OOC: The numbering error has, I sincerely hope, been fully fixed at this point. I can only assume the principles of mathematics are rearranging themselves so as to justify my continued efforts on this front.)

Luckily, it reads normally now.

[Maowi]

"If I may, Ambassador Lewitt, I'd like to suggest a reworking of your clause 1 definition, which currently 'defines a ‘journalist’, for the purposes of this resolution, as a person who relays information, about events they have witnessed firsthand or about events they have gained knowledge of through directly asking people who have witnesses the event firsthand, with the intention of distributing this information to the public, either directly or through the aid of a company or group.'

"Quite a mouthful, I think you'll agree, and much of the wording does not add discriminatory qualifiers. These phrases I have underlined on this copy here may as well not be there - the 'wartime journalist' definition gets you the rest of the way perfectly fine.

"I would also recommend specifying that wartime journalists must be civilians. I do not know what Honeydewistanian agenda Ambassador Hepperle may or may not have been seeking to advance in persuading you to review the misuse of identification clause, but it now does not explicitly forbid soldiers from presenting themselves as wartime journalists, which I personally do not quite find a desirable outcome."

[Kenmoria]

"If I may, Ambassador Lewitt, I'd like to suggest a reworking of your clause 1 definition, which currently 'defines a ‘journalist’, for the purposes of this resolution, as a person who relays information, about events they have witnessed firsthand or about events they have gained knowledge of through directly asking people who have witnesses the event firsthand, with the intention of distributing this information to the public, either directly or through the aid of a company or group.'

"Quite a mouthful, I think you'll agree, and much of the wording does not add discriminatory qualifiers. These phrases I have underlined on this copy here may as well not be there - the 'wartime journalist' definition gets you the rest of the way perfectly fine.

“I do agree, ambassador. I think the section at the end is unnecessary, and shall be axing it. The first section you highlighted from the definition I intended to be there as a way if preventing content aggregators from being considered journalists. However, on further reflection, those people wouldn’t be inside a warzone, so wouldn’t fall under the protections of this proposal anyway.”

[quote)"I would also recommend specifying that wartime journalists must be civilians. I do not know what Honeydewistanian agenda Ambassador Hepperle may or may not have been seeking to advance in persuading you to review the misuse of identification clause, but it now does not explicitly forbid soldiers from presenting themselves as wartime journalists, which I personally do not quite find a desirable outcome."[/quote]
“That is much simpler than the current solution, and a clause to that effect will be added soon, thanks.”

[Refuge Isle]

6. Permits wartime journalists to report on any activities occurring as part of military action, unless reporting on these activists could result in loss of life or military equipment, or the jeopardisation of lawful military activities;

...isn't the direct reading of this line that if there is a lawful military activity, it may not be reported on at all? Yikes.

I understand that you've attempted to deal with the criticisms of the previous resolution by including "lawful" as a clarification, but this doesn't account for much to me. As before, one of the purposes of wartime journalists ought to be that they report on events that the baddies are doing, primarily to protect civilians and hold nations accountable. If the baddies are doing bad stuff (including acts that are illegal), you want journalists to be able to report on those things. If a country can say that such reporting imperils their military goals, the journalist who is inclined to follow the law will be dissuaded after the access denial, whereas the warring nation may continue whatever atrocities as planned and without scrutiny.

What is gained exemption on military activities included in the first place? Surely the goal of the resolution is not to get reporters into a country's intelligence agency - that should be reasonably covered under 5(a). So the types of reporting done is, presumably, things that can be learned from observation from some reasonably accessible area. Why restrict reporting on the observations that can be made there?

[Ardiveds]

What is gained exemption on military activities included in the first place? Surely the goal of the resolution is not to get reporters into a country's intelligence agency - that should be reasonably covered under 5(a). So the types of reporting done is, presumably, things that can be learned from observation from some reasonably accessible area. Why restrict reporting on the observations that can be made there?

"So you mean when you are at war, the enemy has a full open view of your front line? Has you military ever won any war?"
OOC: Imagine if D day was learned from observation from some reasonably accessible area.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

"I think the best compromise is to require member nations to brief Journalists on safety precautions and provide warnings of the danger they may face."

We would support that solution.

[Kenmoria]

6. Permits wartime journalists to report on any activities occurring as part of military action, unless reporting on these activists could result in loss of life or military equipment, or the jeopardisation of lawful military activities;

...isn't the direct reading of this line that if there is a lawful military activity, it may not be reported on at all? Yikes.

(OOC: That’s only if the lawful military activity is jeopardised by being reported on. An assault that the enemy has been forewarned about or which is otherwise known cannot be imperilled by reporting. This clause only really applies to surprise attacks.

I understand that you've attempted to deal with the criticisms of the previous resolution by including "lawful" as a clarification, but this doesn't account for much to me. As before, one of the purposes of wartime journalists ought to be that they report on events that the baddies are doing, primarily to protect civilians and hold nations accountable. If the baddies are doing bad stuff (including acts that are illegal), you want journalists to be able to report on those things. If a country can say that such reporting imperils their military goals, the journalist who is inclined to follow the law will be dissuaded after the access denial, whereas the warring nation may continue whatever atrocities as planned and without scrutiny.

That is a matter for the journalist to decide. If there is clear evidence that the actions are illegal, then I imagine a dedicated member of the press would continue to report on said actions, knowing that the warring state has no legal standing.

What is gained exemption on military activities included in the first place? Surely the goal of the resolution is not to get reporters into a country's intelligence agency - that should be reasonably covered under 5(a). So the types of reporting done is, presumably, things that can be learned from observation from some reasonably accessible area. Why restrict reporting on the observations that can be made there?

This is to avoid all surprise attacks being completely destroyed by journalists broadcasting these on television. I might make this clearer, if others agree that the current situation is ambiguous.)

[West Guam]

The Nation of West Guam strongly supports this resolution.

[Kenmoria]

The Nation of West Guam strongly supports this resolution.

“Thank you for your support, ambassador.”

[Kenmoria]

“Minor wording changes have been made; more feedback is always welcome.”

[Honeydewistania]

Draft looks pretty much perfect

[Honeydewistania]

"Small, possibly unneeded feedback: I’d put a colon after the Hereby instead of a comma."

[Kenmoria]

"Small, possibly unneeded feedback: I’d put a colon after the Hereby instead of a comma."

“I’ve gone with a comma, since colons should technically only fall after what could otherwise be a complete sentence. This isn’t always true, especially in a legal context, but is the style I was taught during my ambassadorial crash course.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. What is section 5(b) supposed to do? Could you give a concrete example of what it is meant to prevent or provide an exception for?

[Honeydewistania]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. What is section 5(b) supposed to do? Could you give a concrete example of what it is meant to prevent or provide an exception for?

"Perhaps if it’s a mine field and the journalist demands access and steps on a line and blows himself and everything around him up? I’m sure however the Kenmoria delegation can provide a better example."

[Kenmoria]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. What is section 5(b) supposed to do? Could you give a concrete example of what it is meant to prevent or provide an exception for?

"Perhaps if it’s a mine field and the journalist demands access and steps on a line and blows himself and everything around him up? I’m sure however the Kenmoria delegation can provide a better example."

“Minefields were actually exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that clause. Providing access in that case could be incredibly dangerous not only to the journalist but also to others, sufficiently so to outweigh journalistic benefits.”

(OOC: I will be submitting this on this weekend, assuming no major feedback is given before then.)

[Araraukar]

1. Defines a ‘journalist’, for the purposes of this resolution, as a person who gathers and relays information, with the intention of distributing this information to the public;

OOC: In other words "a spy". Is it entirely impossible to reword this so that a general managing a battlefield doesn't have to let enemy spies romp around their side with the pretense of publishing everything in a newspaper (while also giving a detailed report to the generals of the opposing side)? Maybe "sole intention"? And/or "publishing" instead of "distributing"?

2. Defines a ‘wartime journalist’ as a journalist who reports on events occurring in wartime from inside an area where military activities are taking place, have recently taken place, or will soon take place;

Howabout "acts of war" instead of "military activities"? That way if one side is not that of a proper military but rather some unofficial combatant force (in civil wars especially such might easily be the case), the area wouldn't be offlimits to journalists. It would also rule out needing to let the journalists into privacy-protected areas like military hospitals, where activities that are about the military (the soldiers) would be taking place but probably wouldn't have a whole lot of anything that could be reported (because of privacy protections of the patients) in the first place.

3. Mandates that all wartime journalists wear clear and externally-obvious identification signifying their status as such, and clarifies that wartime journalists who fail to do so are not protected under the auspices of this resolution;

...so the enemy side journalists can be shot on sight as spies due to the identification not being internationally recognized? I withdraw the issue about the spies.

4. Prohibits active members of a member state’s military from utilising the identification required in clause 3;

Even if they act as journalists instead of soldiers? Militaries do have their own journalists, you know.

The area is private property and the owner, who is not a military or governmental entity nor purchased the property on behalf of one, of that property has not consented to the presence of journalists,

I get that this is meant to be so that a king can't declare all of their kingdom as their private property and block journalists from it, but what if they own a piece of land as a private citizen? They don't have the same rights as everyone else? Why not? Same for prime ministers and city councilors and generals and whatever people. And what if an area of land is jointly owned by a private person and "military or governmental entity", can the private person say no entry?

6. Permits wartime journalists to report on any activities occurring as part of military action, unless reporting on these activists could result in loss of life or military equipment, or the jeopardisation of lawful military activities;

...or doing so would break extant WA resolutions to do about privacy. I would also add something about not violating good journalistic practices (or whatever the English wording for the term is).

7. Prohibits member nations from restricting the movement or actions of journalists, except either in accordance with the exceptions listed in this resolution to journalists’ freedoms, or where the journalists’ actions would be prohibited for a normal civilian not performing journalistic activities and not inside a warzone;

This is hard to parse. Exactly what is the exception meant to mean? Can you give a solid example?

8. Urges member states to fully brief all wartime journalists on the dangers of reporting in wartime in an unbiased manner; and

Does "if you go in there, you're probably not coming out alive" suffice?

9. Exempts from the protections of this resolution any wartime journalist who has been found to have committed or be planning to commit espionage, or who has attempted to interfere with legitimate military actions.

But espionage is totally kosher with the definition of a journalist, so what counts as espionage? How does it differ from journalism here? Same for the interference - asking questions, taking pictures and being underfoot sounds like interfering to me, but probably wasn't your intention.

[Honeydewistania]

...so the enemy side journalists can be shot on sight as spies due to the identification not being internationally recognized? I withdraw the issue about the spies.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but does it say it must be recognised? It only says it must be clear and externally obvious. If it’s clear and externally obvious (like "I AM A WARTIME BUZZFEED REPORTER, DO NOT SHOOT" printed in whatever language it needs to be printed in), then you can’t shoot them

[Araraukar]

...so the enemy side journalists can be shot on sight as spies due to the identification not being internationally recognized? I withdraw the issue about the spies.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but does it say it must be recognised? It only says it must be clear and externally obvious. If it’s clear and externally obvious (like "I AM A WARTIME BUZZFEED REPORTER, DO NOT SHOOT" printed in whatever language it needs to be printed in), then you can’t shoot them

OOC: And if it instead says "SAVON SANOMIEN LEHTIMIES, ÄLÄ AMMU" or "SAVON VOIMIEN SOTAMIES, ÄLÄ AMMU"? Without googling, which is a soldier, which is a journalist?

[Honeydewistania]

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but does it say it must be recognised? It only says it must be clear and externally obvious. If it’s clear and externally obvious (like "I AM A WARTIME BUZZFEED REPORTER, DO NOT SHOOT" printed in whatever language it needs to be printed in), then you can’t shoot them

OOC: And if it instead says "SAVON SANOMIEN LEHTIMIES, ÄLÄ AMMU" or "SAVON VOIMIEN SOTAMIES, ÄLÄ AMMU"? Without googling, which is a soldier, which is a journalist?

Shit. That’s a good point