[ON HOLD] Combating Disinformation

[The Orwell Society]

Just two more approvals and it'll reach quorum!

[The Orwell Society]

One approval left. So close…

[Fachumonn]

One approval left. So close…

[notamod] This is essentially spam. It adds nothing. Making a post for every approval is unneeded, nor wanted. [/notamod]
Sorry if my tone came off a bit harsh I kinda have a tendency in the WA forums to do that...

[The Orwell Society]

One approval left. So close…

[notamod] This is essentially spam. It adds nothing. Making a post for every approval is unneeded, nor wanted. [/notamod]
Sorry if my tone came off a bit harsh I kinda have a tendency in the WA forums to do that...

I am sorry. It will not happen again, Mr. Notamod

To be honest, I just get excited sometimes and get a little nonsensical with my posting

[Fachumonn]

[notamod] This is essentially spam. It adds nothing. Making a post for every approval is unneeded, nor wanted. [/notamod]
Sorry if my tone came off a bit harsh I kinda have a tendency in the WA forums to do that...

I am sorry. It will not happen again, Mr. Notamod

To be honest, I just get excited sometimes and get a little nonsensical with my posting

Nah it's fine...

[The Orwell Society]

A definitely NOT spammy update

This has has garnered the sufficient amount of delegate approvals to reach quorum; however, I will not be online any during the next week because I am going on vacation. I do hope that this does well when it reaches the voting floor, and thank you to all who has helped this proposal get to where it is now.

[Alistia]

Strongly against.

[Comfed]

I am opposed to creating an official WA Arbiter of Truth.

[The Orwell Society]

I am opposed to creating an official WA Arbiter of Truth.

FACT doesn't decide what's true. Research does. That's all I'm going to say.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I am opposed to creating an official WA Arbiter of Truth.

FACT doesn't decide what's true. Research does. That's all I'm going to say.

The Jester dances into the hall and strums three melodious chords on his lyre.

"Ha ha, ha ha," He sings with gall, "Someone pick up the phone and call; The greatest minds on Earth, and fast; To let them know, that we at last; Have found a way to know for sure: That which is true, that which is pure; So they need never worry or weep; about the hard questions that once troubled their sleep!"

The jester smiles and strums three more chords.

"If ever it were so easy as that, the world would be a far simpler place. Simpler, and therefore happier, am I right?"

"Ha ha, ha ha, tra la la la, di da!"

And he dances away.

[Wallenburg]

Only the lies that can harm people on an international scale are banned. Should I elaborate within the text? Does it need more clarification?

Seeing as there is no textual basis by which to limit this to "harm on an international scale", that absolutely needs clarification.

This was never done.

"In addition to the issues I and my colleagues already have raised, this will require my home government to ban nearly all religious expression. Such draconian measures against the falsehoods of religious doctrine are not acceptable to my office. We will oppose this and petition other members also to oppose it."

[The Forest of Aeneas]

"In addition to the issues I and my colleagues already have raised, this will require my home government to ban nearly all religious expression. Such draconian measures against the falsehoods of religious doctrine are not acceptable to my office. We will oppose this and petition other members also to oppose it."

'See 1.b. Moreover, clause 2 only applies to 'deliberate' disinformation, and most who engage in religious expression would believe in that religion, or at least agree with that expression.'

[Wallenburg]

"In addition to the issues I and my colleagues already have raised, this will require my home government to ban nearly all religious expression. Such draconian measures against the falsehoods of religious doctrine are not acceptable to my office. We will oppose this and petition other members also to oppose it."

'See 1.b.'

"Yes. Religious folk express their religious beliefs as a question of fact on a regular basis. Their doctrines and canons are not merely values or helpful fiction to them, these are moral and physical facts. As they are often wrong and cause significant harm to society, religious expression is widely criminalized under these mandates, and that which is not criminalized is otherwise suppressed by the chilling effect of this criminalization."

[The Forest of Aeneas]

'See 1.b.'

"Yes. Religious folk express their religious beliefs as a question of fact on a regular basis. Their doctrines and canons are not merely values or helpful fiction to them, these are moral and physical facts. As they are often wrong and cause significant harm to society, religious expression is widely criminalized under these mandates, and that which is not criminalized is otherwise suppressed by the chilling effect of this criminalization."

'Ambassador, that is not the point. The point is that FACT explicitly does NOT interefere in religious teachings, and 2 only mandates the criminalisation of 'deliberate' disinformation. Disinformation based on information that one genuinely believes is true is not 'deliberate' disinformation.'

[Wallenburg]

"Yes. Religious folk express their religious beliefs as a question of fact on a regular basis. Their doctrines and canons are not merely values or helpful fiction to them, these are moral and physical facts. As they are often wrong and cause significant harm to society, religious expression is widely criminalized under these mandates, and that which is not criminalized is otherwise suppressed by the chilling effect of this criminalization."

'Ambassador, that is not the point. The point is that FACT explicitly does NOT interefere in religious teachings, and 2 only mandates the criminalisation of 'deliberate' disinformation. Disinformation based on information that one genuinely believes is true is not 'deliberate' disinformation.'

"The proposal does not merely criminalize 'deliberate misinformation'. It criminalizes the 'deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation'. The disinformation itself need not have its false qualities deliberately, it need only be deliberately spread, rather than accidentally spread. I will give you that accidental propagation of religious beliefs is not criminalized, as its spread is not deliberate, but most religious communication is done with the intention of, in fact, communicating what are ultimately untrue religious beliefs."

[Honeydewistania]

In addition to the issues I and my colleagues already have raised, this will require my home government to ban nearly all religious expression. Such draconian measures against the falsehoods of religious doctrine are not acceptable to my office. We will oppose this and petition other members also to oppose it.

For these reasons, Honeydewistania is now in FULL SUPPORT.

-Benji

[The Forest of Aeneas]

'Ambassador, that is not the point. The point is that FACT explicitly does NOT interefere in religious teachings, and 2 only mandates the criminalisation of 'deliberate' disinformation. Disinformation based on information that one genuinely believes is true is not 'deliberate' disinformation.'

"The proposal does not merely criminalize 'deliberate misinformation'. It criminalizes the 'deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation'. The disinformation itself need not have its false qualities deliberately, it need only be deliberately spread, rather than accidentally spread. I will give you that accidental propagation of religious beliefs is not criminalized, as its spread is not deliberate, but most religious communication is done with the intention of, in fact, communicating what are ultimately untrue religious beliefs."

OOC: According to MW Legal Dictionary, 'deliberate' in law means 'characterized by an understanding of the nature of a thing or act and its consequences'. 'Deliberate, repeat spreading of misinformation' therefore implies that one understands that they are spreading misinformation.

[Wallenburg]

"The proposal does not merely criminalize 'deliberate misinformation'. It criminalizes the 'deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation'. The disinformation itself need not have its false qualities deliberately, it need only be deliberately spread, rather than accidentally spread. I will give you that accidental propagation of religious beliefs is not criminalized, as its spread is not deliberate, but most religious communication is done with the intention of, in fact, communicating what are ultimately untrue religious beliefs."

OOC: According to MW Legal Dictionary, 'deliberate' in law means 'characterized by an understanding of the nature of a thing or act and its consequences'. 'Deliberate, repeat spreading of misinformation' therefore implies that one understands that they are spreading misinformation.

"Once again, disembodied voice, the deliberate quality is attached not to the misinformation, but to the act of spreading. The spreading is, indeed, deliberate: the actor understands that they are spreading their beliefs and understands the function of doing so. To apply this so broadly as to require a complete understanding of the world—the only way to be certain that you are not spreading disinformation—would render all mortal communication non-deliberate, and we understand this is not the case. The manner in which you apply this definition is illogical."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: According to MW Legal Dictionary, 'deliberate' in law means 'characterized by an understanding of the nature of a thing or act and its consequences'. 'Deliberate, repeat spreading of misinformation' therefore implies that one understands that they are spreading misinformation.

"Once again, disembodied voice, the deliberate quality is attached not to the misinformation, but to the act of spreading. The spreading is, indeed, deliberate: the actor understands that they are spreading their beliefs and understands the function of doing so. To apply this so broadly as to require a complete understanding of the world—the only way to be certain that you are not spreading disinformation—would render all mortal communication non-deliberate, and we understand this is not the case. The manner in which you apply this definition is illogical."

C Marcius Blythe. This reading is the most natural one; the word "deliberate" attaches to "spreading". (OOC. The bolded section is correct under the rule of the nearest reasonable referent. See Scalia & Garner, Reading Law (2012) p 152f.) Though, the definition of "disinformation" given in the proposal is one that also includes pseudo-scienter:

with the knowledge, from the person/people who made the statement, that the statement is factually untrue; and/or
stated with a purposeful and reckless disregard for the statement's falsity

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'After internal debate among our delegation, we have determined that the harm this will cause to freedom of conscience and religion is sufficiently problematic to lead us to vote against should this come to vote.'

[Outer Sparta]

Ambassador Tav. We feel there are too many flaws and what counts as disinformation should be left for individual interpretation instead of having a body decide on it. After all, something dismissed as a conspiracy theory and flagged as disinformation could find a way to be truth down the road, and there is a lot of potential for abuse of what is considered as disinformation.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As our concerns were never addressed to our satisfaction, we will oppose this and encourage others to do the same."

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'This seems to have fallen from queue and been removed by gnomish personell, presumably due to an anonymous countercampaign which has not been shared here.'

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

The proposal needs some more work. Combating the harms caused by disinformation: very noble cause. The concept of a WA Fact police... less so.

[Minskiev]

Countercampaign, for posterity or something

I reach out to you regarding a proposal currently in the GA queue: Combating Disinformation. While its title may sound appealing—nobody likes to see disinformation spread about!—its effects are heinous and unacceptable to the free societies of member states. It grants member states wide agency to silence moral, political, scientific, or religious thought which they deem "false". Religious minorities may lose their ability to express their beliefs, and political activists and scientists may be jailed for no other reason than that their policy propositions or scientific theories are "dangerous" to the public. In effect, it guts the rights established in GA #436, Protecting Free Expression. We cannot allow such a dangerous proposal the chance of passing into law. I ask you to withdraw your approval from Combating Disinformation. You can do so here.

Thank you,
Wallenburg