[DRAFT 1] Climatological Freedoms of Speech

[Araraukar]

Are you saying you believe governments should be able to censor/withhold import climatological information, which has the potential to ruin people’s lives and livelihoods, from its citizens?

OOC: No, I'm saying that "findings" is too vague - in RL we wouldn't even have any debate about climate change being real and caused by humans if not because of major polluters paying some scientists to present "findings" for the opposite and then market those findings vigorously. (Well, ok, in RL the debate is mostly anymore had by people on the internet who think weather and climate are the same thing, but you know what I mean.)

If you've ever heard the claim that vaccines cause autism (falsified findings for profit), then you've already encountered the concept I'm talking about.

Falsified (the "finder" knows it's false) or at least just false findings (the "finder" believes it's true) should be allowed to be banned from being distributed as fact, after they have been proven false.

[The Great Nation of Sawgrassia]

Are you saying you believe governments should be able to censor/withhold import climatological information, which has the potential to ruin people’s lives and livelihoods, from its citizens?

OOC: No, I'm saying that "findings" is too vague - in RL we wouldn't even have any debate about climate change being real and caused by humans if not because of major polluters paying some scientists to present "findings" for the opposite and then market those findings vigorously. (Well, ok, in RL the debate is mostly anymore had by people on the internet who think weather and climate are the same thing, but you know what I mean.)

If you've ever heard the claim that vaccines cause autism (falsified findings for profit), then you've already encountered the concept I'm talking about.

Falsified (the "finder" knows it's false) or at least just false findings (the "finder" believes it's true) should be allowed to be banned from being distributed as fact, after they have been proven false.

OOC: I see what you’re saying. I’m very familiar with climate denial tactics and biased research. Part of the problem isn’t so much that the research/science itself is false, more that the researchers cherry pick the data and manipulate it to help show their point or to try and discredit prominent theories.

Fun fact, it was researchers at Exonn who were some of the first to discover the negative effects of fossil fuels and the existence of climate change. Exonn buried the reports (after further findings only confirmed the researchers original fears) and then created the first anti-climate campaigns.

I could add another clarifying clause allowing for a group of scientists to petition the government to conduct an independent review of the validity of the scientific research/findings and that if the independent review deems the research to be biased, methodologically invalid, or scientifically inaccurate, the government may then ask the scientific journal to withdraw the paper from publication. While I personally don’t disagree with this clause (especially as someone who is a meteorology major and enjoys studying the climate), I can’t help but feel like it contradicts the overall purpose of the proposal (which is why the government may only ask the journal to withdraw the paper instead of allowing the government to censor the research paper entirely).

[Araraukar]

then ask the scientific journal to withdraw the paper from publication.

OOC: But you're not talking about correcting scientific journals in your proposal. You're talking about "any/all censorship in communicating". That means newspaper/magazine/online articles, discussion forums, TV, radio, podcasts, billboard ads, whatever.

Only allowing nations to ask a scientific journal to post a "sorry, that article was based on false findings" while still allowing the false information based on those findings to be blasted through every imaginable media in existence, sounds maliciously obstructive.

Also ban spreading false climatological information, and you solve the issue. Leave it to the nations and the WA enforcement committee to sort out the details of how they tackle spreading false info (that is, don't mention it at all), just ban the spreading of false info.

[The Great Nation of Sawgrassia]

then ask the scientific journal to withdraw the paper from publication.

OOC: But you're not talking about correcting scientific journals in your proposal. You're talking about "any/all censorship in communicating". That means newspaper/magazine/online articles, discussion forums, TV, radio, podcasts, billboard ads, whatever.

Only allowing nations to ask a scientific journal to post a "sorry, that article was based on false findings" while still allowing the false information based on those findings to be blasted through every imaginable media in existence, sounds maliciously obstructive.

Also ban spreading false climatological information, and you solve the issue. Leave it to the nations and the WA enforcement committee to sort out the details of how they tackle spreading false info (that is, don't mention it at all), just ban the spreading of false info.

OOC: I’m following ya. Again, while I don’t disagree, I can’t help but feel like it goes against what the proposal is actually doing. The proposal would contradict itself. I’d essentially be saying that nations can’t censor any climatological findings and then that they can censor false finding. What place does the government have to say what science is correct and what is not. Especially with no way for governments to independently examine the findings. A malevolent, corrupt government could just declare that certain research is false even if it’s true or vice versa and just ban it, could they not?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: But you're not talking about correcting scientific journals in your proposal. You're talking about "any/all censorship in communicating". That means newspaper/magazine/online articles, discussion forums, TV, radio, podcasts, billboard ads, whatever.

Only allowing nations to ask a scientific journal to post a "sorry, that article was based on false findings" while still allowing the false information based on those findings to be blasted through every imaginable media in existence, sounds maliciously obstructive.

Also ban spreading false climatological information, and you solve the issue. Leave it to the nations and the WA enforcement committee to sort out the details of how they tackle spreading false info (that is, don't mention it at all), just ban the spreading of false info.

OOC: I’m following ya. Again, while I don’t disagree, I can’t help but feel like it goes against what the proposal is actually doing. The proposal would contradict itself. I’d essentially be saying that nations can’t censor any climatological findings and then that they can censor false finding. What place does the government have to say what science is correct and what is not. Especially with no way for governments to independently examine the findings. A malevolent, corrupt government could just declare that certain research is false even if it’s true or vice versa and just ban it, could they not?

(OOC: Even allowing member nations to decide for themselves whether to allow the censorship of false information, by restricting your active clause to verifiable, true information, would prevent this from suffering too much at vote. I do not think that many people will take too kindly to being forced to allow climate change denial. On your point about malevolent governments, that would be noncompliance, and dealt with by the WACC, as per the Administrative Compliance Act.)

[The Great Nation of Sawgrassia]

OOC: I’m following ya. Again, while I don’t disagree, I can’t help but feel like it goes against what the proposal is actually doing. The proposal would contradict itself. I’d essentially be saying that nations can’t censor any climatological findings and then that they can censor false finding. What place does the government have to say what science is correct and what is not. Especially with no way for governments to independently examine the findings. A malevolent, corrupt government could just declare that certain research is false even if it’s true or vice versa and just ban it, could they not?

(OOC: Even allowing member nations to decide for themselves whether to allow the censorship of false information, by restricting your active clause to verifiable, true information, would prevent this from suffering too much at vote. I do not think that many people will take too kindly to being forced to allow climate change denial. On your point about malevolent governments, that would be noncompliance, and dealt with by the WACC, as per the Administrative Compliance Act.)

OOC: So, if I’m understanding correctly, you think I should edit the wording to say verifiable/true findings instead of all climatological findings and then add a separate clause leaving it up to individual nations to decide whether or not to restrict access to/ban false findings?

OOC: Still, there is no way for governments to verify what is and isn’t a false finding. Also, a lot of times climate-denial research isn’t (normally) technically false. Often times the data is just heavily manipulated to appear to support or disprove certain claims

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Even allowing member nations to decide for themselves whether to allow the censorship of false information, by restricting your active clause to verifiable, true information, would prevent this from suffering too much at vote. I do not think that many people will take too kindly to being forced to allow climate change denial. On your point about malevolent governments, that would be noncompliance, and dealt with by the WACC, as per the Administrative Compliance Act.)

OOC: So, if I’m understanding correctly, you think I should edit the wording to say verifiable/true findings instead of all climatological findings and then add a separate clause leaving it up to individual nations to decide whether or not to restrict access to/ban false findings?

(OOC: Yes, that is my suggestion.

OOC: Still, there is no way for governments to verify what is and isn’t a false finding. Also, a lot of times climate-denial research isn’t (normally) technically false. Often times the data is just heavily manipulated to appear to support or disprove certain claims

Epistemologically, there is no way to determine reliably if anything is true or false. However, there are often common-sense ways to make a good estimation. Defamation law relies on governments, or more accurately courts, assessing what is true or false, so it certainly isn’t an impossibility. This is something where member states can use whatever resources they have at their disposal.)

[The Great Nation of Sawgrassia]

OOC: So, if I’m understanding correctly, you think I should edit the wording to say verifiable/true findings instead of all climatological findings and then add a separate clause leaving it up to individual nations to decide whether or not to restrict access to/ban false findings?

(OOC: Yes, that is my suggestion.

OOC: Still, there is no way for governments to verify what is and isn’t a false finding. Also, a lot of times climate-denial research isn’t (normally) technically false. Often times the data is just heavily manipulated to appear to support or disprove certain claims

Epistemologically, there is no way to determine reliably if anything is true or false. However, there are often common-sense ways to make a good estimation. Defamation law relies on governments, or more accurately courts, assessing what is true or false, so it certainly isn’t an impossibility. This is something where member states can use whatever resources they have at their disposal.)

Edited

[Wallenburg]

This requires member states to publish confidential information, including military research, if it has any relationship with climate science. That's something to be remedied.

[The Great Nation of Sawgrassia]

This requires member states to publish confidential information, including military research, if it has any relationship with climate science. That's something to be remedied.

The point of the proposal is to ensure that such a scenario happens. Citizens have a right to know about the climatology of their area. Allowing the government to withhold such information has the possibility to put a great many number of citizens in danger. Furthermore, governments attempting to hide or censor climatological information could just classify all such information as “confidential” or some may even go so far as to prohibit climatologists from working or pulling all public funding for their research to ensure that only the military could conduct such research. Including such a clause would nullify the very purpose of the proposal and needlessly put countless individuals in great danger.

[Wallenburg]

This requires member states to publish confidential information, including military research, if it has any relationship with climate science. That's something to be remedied.

The point of the proposal is to ensure that such a scenario happens. Citizens have a right to know about the climatology of their area. Allowing the government to withhold such information has the possibility to put a great many number of citizens in danger. Furthermore, governments attempting to hide or censor climatological information could just classify all such information as “confidential” or some may even go so far as to prohibit climatologists from working or pulling all public funding for their research to ensure that only the military could conduct such research. Including such a clause would nullify the very purpose of the proposal and needlessly put countless individuals in great danger.

Oh, so it's intended to reveal state military secrets. Good to know. Against.

[The Great Nation of Sawgrassia]

The point of the proposal is to ensure that such a scenario happens. Citizens have a right to know about the climatology of their area. Allowing the government to withhold such information has the possibility to put a great many number of citizens in danger. Furthermore, governments attempting to hide or censor climatological information could just classify all such information as “confidential” or some may even go so far as to prohibit climatologists from working or pulling all public funding for their research to ensure that only the military could conduct such research. Including such a clause would nullify the very purpose of the proposal and needlessly put countless individuals in great danger.

Oh, so it's intended to reveal state military secrets. Good to know. Against.

OOC: No. That is not the intent of this proposal. I suggest you reread the proposal to get a clearer understanding. Nowhere in this proposal does it compel militaries or governments to divulge secrets or confidential information of a non-climatological manner. Maybe so I can understand your point better, could you provide me with an example of a climatological military or government secret which you would be worried might get revealed and cause irreparable harm to the nation, their military, and civilians? What type of climatological information would be a risk to a nations national security more than the risk to life associated with citizens being withheld important information which they could use to remove themselves from possible danger?

[Wallenburg]

Oh, so it's intended to reveal state military secrets. Good to know. Against.

OOC: No. That is not the intent of this proposal. I suggest you reread the proposal to get a clearer understanding.

This requires member states to publish confidential information, including military research, if it has any relationship with climate science. That's something to be remedied.

The point of the proposal is to ensure that such a scenario happens.

You are contradicting yourself.

Nowhere in this proposal does it compel militaries or governments to divulge secrets or confidential information of a non-climatological manner. Maybe so I can understand your point better, could you provide me with an example of a climatological military or government secret which you would be worried might get revealed and cause irreparable harm to the nation, their military, and civilians? What type of climatological information would be a risk to a nations national security more than the risk to life associated with citizens being withheld important information which they could use to remove themselves from possible danger?

I can't provide you with an example of a confidential military document with climatological information in it, because those documents are confidential. Suffice it to say, however, any documents containing long-term weather information, climate classification, or reference to climate change must be published under your mandate. If a soldier includes a reference to climate change in their report to their commanding officer, that report is now required to be published. Take that, and expand from there to encompass all cases in which climate becomes a topic of concern within military communications. That's to say nothing of all the cases where the military studies weather and atmospheric patterns in order to better plan military activity, design better equipment, or work in aerospace. It is almost inevitable that such studies will include "data, findings, or terminology relating to the communication and understanding of climatological sciences".

[Laka Strolistandiler]

OOC: No. That is not the intent of this proposal. I suggest you reread the proposal to get a clearer understanding.

The point of the proposal is to ensure that such a scenario happens.

You are contradicting yourself.

Nowhere in this proposal does it compel militaries or governments to divulge secrets or confidential information of a non-climatological manner. Maybe so I can understand your point better, could you provide me with an example of a climatological military or government secret which you would be worried might get revealed and cause irreparable harm to the nation, their military, and civilians? What type of climatological information would be a risk to a nations national security more than the risk to life associated with citizens being withheld important information which they could use to remove themselves from possible danger?

I can't provide you with an example of a confidential military document with climatological information in it, because those documents are confidential. Suffice it to say, however, any documents containing long-term weather information, climate classification, or reference to climate change must be published under your mandate. If a soldier includes a reference to climate change in their report to their commanding officer, that report is now required to be published. Take that, and expand from there to encompass all cases in which climate becomes a topic of concern within military communications. That's to say nothing of all the cases where the military studies weather and atmospheric patterns in order to better plan military activity, design better equipment, or work in aerospace. It is almost inevitable that such studies will include "data, findings, or terminology relating to the communication and understanding of climatological sciences".

I actually can provide such an example from a RL because I have access to such documents on my workplace.

As I work in the maintaince and exploitation unit, it issues special maintanance documents for her our jets should be used and taken care of in specific countries, like, namely, Vietnam or Egypt. As you shpull probably guess by know, these documents are full with references to specific climatological factors that are very important for a modern combat plane. Should such documents be kept secret? Of course they should, yet this resolution bans it.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Climatological weapons I don’t think are really possible. I’m a meteorology major and I’ve taken a lot of environmental science and climate classes. Climate refers to the meteorological conditions over a long period of time, so a climate weapon wouldn’t really help in any way since the effects wouldn’t be felt for some time.

OOC: Spacefaring nation melts another planet's ice-caps, rapidly, from orbit?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Climatological weapons I don’t think are really possible. I’m a meteorology major and I’ve taken a lot of environmental science and climate classes. Climate refers to the meteorological conditions over a long period of time, so a climate weapon wouldn’t really help in any way since the effects wouldn’t be felt for some time.

OOC: Spacefaring nation melts another planet's ice-caps, rapidly, from orbit?

Any sort of weapon that can impart that much heat would be more useful frying population centers.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
With regards to climatological, or, more broadly, ecological warfare, lasting damage is often the point. US colonizers frequently deliberately destroyed regions and populations maintained by Indigenous peoples - and they were maintained, there is clear evidence even in western science proving this, - so as to cause damage that would ultimately result in famines or conflict, that damage was intentional. An easy example would be the deliberate extermination hunting of Bison, both paving the way for colonial expansion in easing the burden of railways, and in the elimination of a crucial source of food and supplies for indigenous peoples.

If one is unconcerned with the environment they are targeting, however unwise it is to target it, very permanent damage is much easier to achieve than one can think, and virtually impossible to repair. Frankly, it is best to prohibit any such things outright before they become a part of someone's MAD strategy, regardless of what the people who whine about techwank or somesuch think. Never underestimate the utter disregard for lives the world over a sufficiently powerful entity may have; the most powerful countries in RL dedicate quite a bit of time to thinking of how best to raze the planet should they be seriously threatened. The same may be safely assumed on NS, even before we get into solely RP matters.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Frankly, it is best to prohibit any such things outright before they become a part of someone's MAD strategy, regardless of what the people who whine about techwank or somesuch think.

OOC: Already had became…

[Trellania]

OOC: Is the player that wrote this draft even still interested in continuing revision?

[Tsaivao]

It is almost inevitable that such studies will include "data, findings, or terminology relating to the communication and understanding of climatological sciences".

OOC: This would be a pretty simple fix, just add "... terminology relating to the non-military communication and understanding of climatological sciences." I'm eager to support this resolution so long as that one word is added in for y'all

[Coronational Chechyans and affiliates]

I would support this proposal. I do agree with the above commenter who stated there should probably be an exception for secret military weapons or uses. Especially of an experimental nature