would prohibit any kind of meaningfully truthful civil discovery.
Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Aug 09, 2021 7:48 am
by Tinhampton » Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:22 pm
by Tinhampton » Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:10 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. The clause statingforbids member states from: requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief
would prohibit any kind of meaningfully truthful civil discovery.
by Tinhampton » Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:58 pm
by Tinhampton » Sat May 07, 2022 8:31 pm
by Tinhampton » Mon May 16, 2022 9:55 am
by Fachumonn » Mon May 16, 2022 2:19 pm
Tinhampton wrote:The party don't stop until June 7th 2022
by Tinhampton » Mon May 16, 2022 2:23 pm
by Fachumonn » Mon May 16, 2022 4:21 pm
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Mon May 16, 2022 4:29 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:
Tinhampton wrote:forbids member states from: * * * criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,
Tinhampton wrote:forbids member states from: * * * criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic
Tinhampton wrote:forbids member states from: * * * requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the proceedings of courts, tribunals and similar mechanisms are swift and truthful,
Tinhampton wrote:prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against: * * * any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,
Tinhampton wrote:clarifies that no part of this resolution other than Article a(iii) directly regulates the actual expression of opinions or other speech.
by Tinhampton » Sat May 21, 2022 11:19 am
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:
I don't get this preamble. You use a negatively charged term and then denounce it. That's easy and flippant, and it really doesn't tell me much about the aims here. I don't think any of what follows addresses brainwashing, at least not as I understand that problem.
PRS wrote:Tinhampton wrote:forbids member states from: * * * criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,
As a matter of pure philosophy there may be a valid distinction here (probably not though). But as a matter of law this clause makes no sense. A legal freedom of thought cannot possibly exist without a corresponding right of expression. That is so because the leviathan cannot know your thoughts unless you express them. Allowing the expression to be criminalized is the same as allowing the thought to be criminalized. What have you protected? Nothing that I can tell.
[...]
Reconsider why [Article b(ii)] is even here given that in the next clause you write:Tinhampton wrote:clarifies that no part of this resolution other than Article a(iii) directly regulates the actual expression of opinions or other speech.
When most of what you are doing doesn't actually regulate the expression of opinions or other speech, I seriously doubt whether you've done anything to establish a Freedom of Opinion and Belief.
PRS wrote:Tinhampton wrote:forbids member states from: * * * requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the proceedings of courts, tribunals and similar mechanisms are swift and truthful,
You may wish to think this through and refine it. Can a nation's military require its members to affirm the belief that the duly elected president must be obeyed because they are the commander-in-chief of the military? This points somewhat in the right direction of protecting freedoms, but it cuts far too wide a swath.
PRS wrote:Tinhampton wrote:prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against: * * * any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,
I don't think I could ever support a resolution that prohibits the WA from discriminating against a government due to their actions. I feel like discrimination based on conduct is pretty legitimate.
PRS wrote:I think that if you're serious about proposing a law on such a complicated concept as this, there needs to be more thought into what exactly you are doing and why. That is just my opinion. I would love to support legislation on this subject, but I don't think what I'm seeing here is worthy of its billing.
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Mon May 23, 2022 10:16 am
Tinhampton wrote:Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:I don't get this preamble. You use a negatively charged term and then denounce it. That's easy and flippant, and it really doesn't tell me much about the aims here. I don't think any of what follows addresses brainwashing, at least not as I understand that problem.
I mean, I am trying to stop people from being coerced into believing or not believing assorted things, am I not?
Tinhampton wrote:PRS wrote:As a matter of pure philosophy there may be a valid distinction here (probably not though). But as a matter of law this clause makes no sense. A legal freedom of thought cannot possibly exist without a corresponding right of expression. That is so because the leviathan cannot know your thoughts unless you express them. Allowing the expression to be criminalized is the same as allowing the thought to be criminalized. What have you protected? Nothing that I can tell.
[...]
Reconsider why [Article b(ii)] is even here given that in the next clause you write:
When most of what you are doing doesn't actually regulate the expression of opinions or other speech, I seriously doubt whether you've done anything to establish a Freedom of Opinion and Belief.
What you do with your own brain is your business. Right?
Tinhampton wrote:Would you instead accept Article a(iii) if it banned members from"requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement forms part of a prescribed oath" ?
Tinhampton wrote:Tinhampton wrote:prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against: * * * any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,PRS wrote:I don't think I could ever support a resolution that prohibits the WA from discriminating against a government due to their actions. I feel like discrimination based on conduct is pretty legitimate.
GA#440 allows a WA committee to sanction member states in non-compliance with GA resolutions already. Please elaborate on what you mean, other than that.
by Baldia » Mon Oct 24, 2022 6:14 am
by Heavens Reach » Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:44 am
Baldia wrote:Humans are emotional creatures. They desperately need to be led. I urge the members of this assembly to reconsider their decision to vote illegal on this matter. [THE LAND OF KINGS AND EMPERORS] is a vastly large region consisting of many countries and it's inhabitants. It is dangerous to give trillions of citizens too much opinion and belief. What happens when they start rebelling against their countries or this very own assembly? It would prove difficult to subdue trillions of citizens, not to mention how costly the process would be. It is far too dangerous and this unprecedented event would destroy our beautiful region as we know it.
by Tinhampton » Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:50 am
by Juansonia » Mon Oct 24, 2022 2:14 pm
Orwell society co-author confirmed?Tinhampton wrote:All wrongthink has since been purged from this proposal.
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by Heidgaudr » Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:31 am
Tinhampton wrote:Article a(iii) has its roots in certain American proposals to ban or at least disincentivise the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools - see, for instance, New Hampshire HB 544 ("The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II") or Chip Roy's federally proposed CRT Act ("The term ‘‘promote’’, when used with respect to a race-based theory described in subsection (c), means... (C) to compel students to profess a belief in such theories.") I addedArticle dArticle c later to clarify that this is the only regulation of speech directly imposed by my proposal.
Tinhampton wrote:iii. requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs
by Pangurstan » Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:59 pm
Heidgaudr wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Article a(iii) has its roots in certain American proposals to ban or at least disincentivise the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools - see, for instance, New Hampshire HB 544 ("The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II") or Chip Roy's federally proposed CRT Act ("The term ‘‘promote’’, when used with respect to a race-based theory described in subsection (c), means... (C) to compel students to profess a belief in such theories.") I addedArticle dArticle c later to clarify that this is the only regulation of speech directly imposed by my proposal.
OOC: You do realize that the anti-CRT bills in the US are really fucking terrible, right? For example, in some states if a teacher wants to use The Diary of Anne Frank in the classroom, they have to also use a source of an opposing view point, like Mein Kampf.Tinhampton wrote:iii. requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs
"Our nation firmly believes in the Paradox of Tolerance, and we will oppose any bill which would prevent us from curbing horrific hate speech."
OOC: This would prevent Germany from enforcing its laws against Holocaust denial.
by Heidgaudr » Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:24 pm
Pangurstan wrote:Heidgaudr wrote:OOC: You do realize that the anti-CRT bills in the US are really fucking terrible, right? For example, in some states if a teacher wants to use The Diary of Anne Frank in the classroom, they have to also use a source of an opposing view point, like Mein Kampf.
"Our nation firmly believes in the Paradox of Tolerance, and we will oppose any bill which would prevent us from curbing horrific hate speech."
OOC: This would prevent Germany from enforcing its laws against Holocaust denial.
This proposal only establishes freedom to hold an opinion. It doesn't establish the freedom to share/express that opinion.
by Pangurstan » Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:44 pm
Heidgaudr wrote:Pangurstan wrote:This proposal only establishes freedom to hold an opinion. It doesn't establish the freedom to share/express that opinion.
"What's the point of having an opinion if you're not able to express it, then? The ability to express one's opinion is a vital part of opinion and belief. So either it does nothing or it enables the intolerant to spread their beliefs. Either situation is unsatisfactory."
by Juansonia » Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:57 pm
Heidgaudr wrote:Pangurstan wrote:This proposal only establishes freedom to hold an opinion. It doesn't establish the freedom to share/express that opinion.
"What's the point of having an opinion if you're not able to express it, then? The ability to express one's opinion is a vital part of opinion and belief. So either it does nothing or it enables the intolerant to spread their beliefs. Either situation is unsatisfactory."
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by Tinhampton » Tue Oct 25, 2022 5:14 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement