NationStates

Hulldom wrote:This proposal explicitly does not mention such. It mentions the acceptable categories for publication in clauses 2 and 5.

Araraukar wrote:

Hulldom wrote:This proposal explicitly does not mention such. It mentions the acceptable categories for publication in clauses 2 and 5.

OOC: ...are we looking at the same draft? The one visible in OP just lists in clause 2 some things spies are not allowed to publish, instead of specifying the ones the spies are allowed to publish. If you did the latter, then the problem didn't exist. Doing the former means anything else, such as industrial secrets, they are allowed to target.

And clause 5 doesn't say anything about what the spies are not allowed to publish but rather what nations and businesses are not allowed to hold them responsible for.

If it's hard to understand the difference, imagine a table laden with all kinds of food items. Clause 2 says the spies are not allowed to take the fruit cake or the onion rings. That means they're allowed to take whatever else they want. And clause 5 says nations and businesses can't prosecute the spies as thiefs for taking chicken nuggets or giving them to a friend to eat (and not allowed to prosecute the recipient either), even if it means the nations and businesses had to pay for the chicken nuggets.

If there was a clause saying the spies could only publish info that directly pertains to the illegalities they want to out (in the food reference, only allowed to take food items that are on yellow plates), then the issue wouldn't exist. The only thing in addition to the illegal activity proof that the proposal really talks about, is personally identifying information.

A single clause at the end saying something like "The protections afforded by this resolution do not apply to the publishing of any other information not directly related to the illegal activity" would solve the problem.

Other than that, clause 4 current wording seems to imply the crime victim is subject to WA law, rather than the information to be published.

Hulldom wrote:This proposal has nothing to do with the publication of trade secrets and I'm not about to overextend it to that point, if you'd like more comprehensive work on that subject, I would strongly urge you to consider writing said legislation yourself.

Boston Castle wrote:Regardless of what happens when it hits the floor on Wednesday, l am immensely grateful for the outpouring of Delegate support for this hitting the floor.

[As a side note, wonder what the record for approvals is?]

Tinhampton wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:Regardless of what happens when it hits the floor on Wednesday, l am immensely grateful for the outpouring of Delegate support for this hitting the floor.

[As a side note, wonder what the record for approvals is?]

At least 323 - although that proposal was approved by 13.3% of delegates while WPA has been approved by 10.5% of delegates.

Support.

Tinhampton wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:Regardless of what happens when it hits the floor on Wednesday, l am immensely grateful for the outpouring of Delegate support for this hitting the floor.

[As a side note, wonder what the record for approvals is?]

At least 323 - although that proposal was approved by 13.3% of delegates while WPA has been approved by 10.5% of delegates.

Support.

Hanaken wrote:Personally, I think the Whistleblower Protection Act is a great idea. However, I agree with Asanite. Section 5d is by far the resolution's biggest failing point. Regrettably, the nations of Elysias have concerns when it comes to exposing information pertaining to National Security, and as such have asked me to vote against this resolution. Hanaken will vote no, but would support revising section 5d in the future.

Liber Operarios wrote:Liber Operarios will be voting in favor of this resolution. However, we still feel it does not go far enough. While the concerns that are addressed in section 2 are supposed to prevent threats to so-called "national security," the government of Liber Operarios believes withholding information from the populace makes the state above its people and not the arm of them. If a government attempts to hide information, then how can the people know it is working for them?

While we believe any progress is good progress, there is still work that needs to be done. We hope that in the future these issues may be addressed in future legislation.

Enjuku wrote:Enjuku, considering the importance of a nation-state's right to privacy and to protect its national security, will be voting AGAINST this resolution.

We are hopeful in the future that the WA will consider that some nations should reserve the right to prioritize the safety of its people over the safety of dangerous and divisive rhetoric. Freedom of speech is a prized right in Enjuku, and we stand with the spirit of this resolution. However, as the saying of "do no shout fire in a movie theater" makes common sense, it should also be common sense that the voice of one disgruntled person, trusted at-glance, should not unnecessarily topple the livelihoods of innocent people or organizations. Speech, as with other activities, can be weaponized, and thus should be reasonably regulated. And governments have a duty to protect their citizens from such things.

For these reasons, our delegation reiterates a vote of AGAINST on this resolution. Thank you.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I can't support this proposal.

Privacy is an important right. People who work for the government have privacy rights in the same way normal citizens do. The vast majority of people who work for the government, being inferior officers thereof, take salaries and live peacefully. The provision in section 4, which indemnifies media outlets from punishment for 'the dissemination of financial information of a government official', is at best the World Assembly saying that 'if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide'. At worst, it opens government workers to identity theft and harassment. Privacy rights are sometimes overridden by other important public interests. This should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not on blanket legislation which makes government workers' finances public knowledge.

Section 3 also is poorly written. Depending on how it could be read, it prohibits the media from publishing a person's personally identifying information (such as names) unless that person is party to a crime committed by a government official. This is a substantial limit on the freedom of the press: media outlets would no longer be able to report on crimes committed entirely by private individuals and unconnected to government action. This not only harms press freedom, but also the ability of the press to report on private misdeeds, meaning more unethical behaviour goes unreported, harming society writ large.

Or it might read that both whistleblowers and media outlets need publish to take such an action, which doesn't make sense, as whistleblowers do not publish: media outlets do. This dual-party interpretation then makes the provision more-or-less entirely inapplicable because whistleblowers are not publishers. The first interpretation (and its consequent impacts on press freedom) should therefore be preferred to one which effectively omits the entire clause.

Moreover, section 6(a)'s provision which bars seeking legal recourse prohibits the starting of a defamation lawsuit unless the statement was 'proven to be demonstrably false'. Note that 'proven' is in the past tense. Such a bar in effect closes off all recourse: to have something proven false in a court of law, it must first be proved before a judge, which cannot happen because 'seek[ing] legal recourse' is prohibited. Even governments have a right not to be lied about, destroying that right cannot be what was intended.