[DRAFT] Upholding Journalistic Freedom in Wartime

[Araraukar]

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

OOC: For the record, "sotamies" (literally "warman") means soldier.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Woah, thanks for all the feedback. I think I might have to push back the submission date somewhat.

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"?

I’ve tried to reword it, and I believe the new definition counts only journalists. On the other hand, I’m worried it might be too restrictive, as a lot of newspapers have ideological affiliations, meaning that they couldn’t send reporters to warzones. However, I’d rather mandate that only some journalists are allowed into a nation than force nations to allow spies into their territory.

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.

That has been edited and rectified.

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.

I did want to include a committee on making externally-identifiable identification, but decided against it based on concerns about that being excessive. However, on reflection, that does seem to be the only way to do it.

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.

Well, yes. That identification is meant for international soldiers. Otherwise, militaries could use the protections of this proposal to send journalists to the other force’s sides.

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?

This has been edited and, hopefully, rectified.

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).

I’ve added in a section about breaching WA resolutions on privacy.

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?

That section states that journalists actions can be restricted, where said restrictions are applied to everyone. For example, a member state can restrict a journalist from murdering people, because murder is prohibited for everyone.

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?

It’s only an urging, so I don’t see why not.

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.

I’ve added the useful ‘unduly’ before ‘interference’, so as to preclude this sort of loopholing. As for espionage, that’s more intended to be a patch in case the definition accidentally includes some form of spying, so that member states still have the authority to catch them.)

[Honeydewistania]

I did want to include a committee on making externally-identifiable identification, but decided against it based on concerns about that being excessive. However, on reflection, that does seem to be the only way to do it.

Will this new committee allow their identification to be available to non-member journalists interested in reporting too?

[Kenmoria]

I did want to include a committee on making externally-identifiable identification, but decided against it based on concerns about that being excessive. However, on reflection, that does seem to be the only way to do it.

Will this new committee allow their identification to be available to non-member journalists interested in reporting too?

(OOC: I would like to do so. However, because nonmembers aren’t bound by any of the provisions in this legislation guaranteeing lawful conduct, there’s too much risk of abuse.)

[Honeydewistania]

Will this new committee allow their identification to be available to non-member journalists interested in reporting too?

(OOC: I would like to do so. However, because nonmembers aren’t bound by any of the provisions in this legislation guaranteeing lawful conduct, there’s too much risk of abuse.)

A shame, but I guess non member journalists aren’t protected anyway without this, so it’s not so bad.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium has no objections at this time."

[Refuge Isle]

7. Clarifies that, with regards to clause 5a, if a property is owned jointly between persons who are able to deny consent to journalists and persons who are not, those persons who would ordinarily be able to deny consent to the entrance of journalists are still able to do so;

This should be updated to say 6a.

Outside of that, I have no complaints with content of this proposal, and it appears to be a vast improvement over the previous resolution. Good luck

[Kenmoria]

"The Imperium has no objections at this time."

“Hmm. I thank you for your support. However, I must ask why the Imperium has decided to support a proposal to which it was so fervently opposed earlier?”

7. Clarifies that, with regards to clause 5a, if a property is owned jointly between persons who are able to deny consent to journalists and persons who are not, those persons who would ordinarily be able to deny consent to the entrance of journalists are still able to do so;

This should be updated to say 6a.

Outside of that, I have no complaints with content of this proposal, and it appears to be a vast improvement over the previous resolution. Good luck

(OOC: That has been edited, and thanks.)

[Honeydewistania]

"The Imperium has no objections at this time."

“Hmm. I thank you for your support. However, I must ask why the Imperium has decided to support a proposal to which it was so fervently opposed earlier?”

"Perhaps the extra security briefings to potential journalists?"

[Honeydewistania]

4. Mandates that all wartime journalists wear this aforementioned identification, and clarifies that wartime journalists who fail to do so are not protected under the auspices of this resolution;

Would it be necessary to mandate that governments provide the identification to people, since this identification is only given to member states and governments?

the breach of World Assembly legislation pertaining to privacy , or the jeopardisation of lawful military activities;

There is an erroneous space

[Kenmoria]

4. Mandates that all wartime journalists wear this aforementioned identification, and clarifies that wartime journalists who fail to do so are not protected under the auspices of this resolution;

Would it be necessary to mandate that governments provide the identification to people, since this identification is only given to member states and governments?

(OOC: It don’t think it would be necessary. Providing wartime identification to all possible journalists is an expense that isn’t required for this proposal, which focuses more on what freedoms journalists have when reporting.

the breach of World Assembly legislation pertaining to privacy , or the jeopardisation of lawful military activities;

There is an erroneous space

That has been fixed, thanks.)

[Separatist Peoples]

"We support the principles inherent in this proposal. Unfortunately, the drafting has become so convoluted in response to unreasonable concerns that, in its current form, it may be too tangled to salvage. My delegation respectfully proposes that the author reorganize this into three or four distinct segments: one detailing the noncombatant status of a journalist (hopefully borrowing heavily from language used in prior wartime resolutions), one dealing with the specific ways a journalist can lose their noncombatant status, one detailing the duties of member states to journalists as members of the press and not as combatants or noncombatants, and, as needed, one segment for committee duties. I believe you can do this adequately in three sections, not four. Extant resolutions have handled symbols of neutrality and noncombatant status, you need not reinvent the wheel.

"Once this is done, the entire proposal will need a great deal of red pen, as the language is rife with surplusage. Given that the author is, in my experience a clear and succinct writer, I suspect this is the result of accommodating unreasonable demands for clarification and in response to ludicrous fact patterns.

"If the author is interested, I am willing to provide extensive aid and permission to recycle language from my own resolutions. That comes with the condition that the author must agree to lend these fanciful impossibilities proposed in the debate absolutely no credence. A journalist is the worst kind of tactical intelligence source one could hope for, and we need not treat them as a veritable army of James Bonds with notepads."