NationStates

Repeal GAR #436; Protecting Free Expression

~*~*~*~ Link to Target: GAR #436 ~*~*~*~

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Recalling that our longstanding commitment to expressive freedom dates back to GAR #30, titled "Freedom of Expression," which was one of the earliest General Assembly resolutions;

Recalling that Freedom of Expression was the law for many years until the General Assembly repealed it because, with the benefit of new perspective and knowledge, we recognized that it did not allow Member Nations to protect their people from corporate lies, false advertisements, and other "publication of materials that would damage public health, social order, or needless [sic] antagonisation" (see GAR #433, titled "Repeal 'Freedom of Expression'");

Recalling that GAR #436, titled "Protecting Free Expression," was adopted by the General Assembly shortly after Freedom of Expression was repealed, as its spiritual successor;

Noting that GAR #436 was adopted many years ago and has enjoyed a long tenure as the law on the subject, but was enacted before the terrible consequences of verbal abuse and widespread misinformation were fully known or understood;

Listing some of the flaws in GAR #436's Part 2 which warrant repeal, as follows:

1. It does not permit Member Nations to take national action against bullying or demeaning others because of their sexual orientation, race, or religion;
2. It does not permit Member Nations to take national action against recruitment to radical ideologies or hate groups;
3. It does not permit Member Nations to take national action against obscenity and profanity, except when it is pornographic;
4. It does not permit Member Nations to enact reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions for public speech and debate;
5. It does not permit Member Nations to take national action against false advertisement;
6. It does not even mention false advertisement, even though that was a specific concern motivating the repeal of its predecessor;
7. It does not acknowledge or allow effective measures to address the growing problem of deliberate, widespread misinformation;

Noting that GAR #436 partially overcorrects for the foregoing errors in its final Part, by allowing broad restrictions on the consumption of expression for minors without providing any baseline rights for those minors - a tremendous mistake which means that some minors might only be given access to a single viewpoint (even a false one) without any right to broader exposure;

Aware that the only method GAR #436 gives for addressing new issues and developments in expression is for the General Assembly to pass a new resolution on the matter;

Convinced that Member Nations should not be required to propose, pursue, build a coalition around, and pass a new General Assembly resolution every time they need to address a newly-discovered problem, particularly where that problem may not affect every other Member Nation (and therefore may not be something every other Member Nation wants to legislate on);

Resolved that it is time for a new resolution on the freedom of expression which addresses the concerns laid out above, and which grants Member Nations greater power to address newly emergent issues while also ensuring baseline free speech protections;

Certain that there is no shortage of good ideas or intelligent, engaged authors who will race - perhaps even scramble, but maybe with more care than last time - to address this subject with a fresh perspective; and

Hoping that a future resolution on this topic will focus on protecting core rights without overly broad prohibitions on Member Nations' ability to effectively address new developments within their respective societies.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby REPEALS GAR #436, the resolution titled "Protecting Free Expression"

Tinhampton wrote:Support. I volunteer "Individual Free Expression Guarantee" by Wallenburg as tribute.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:We are opposed as written. The Roman Republic considers complaints 1, 2, 3, and 7 to be affirmative features to be lauded and absolutely preserved as protecting crucial rights against the continuing depredations of the radical left-wing agenda espoused by a sizable contingent of this nest of harlots and vipers.

We do believe there are sound criticisms to be made along the lines of 4, 5 and 6 though we consider them relatively minor and able to be easily accomodated.

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:We are opposed as written. The Roman Republic considers complaints 1, 2, 3, and 7 to be affirmative features to be lauded and absolutely preserved as protecting crucial rights against the continuing depredations of the radical left-wing agenda espoused by a sizable contingent of this nest of harlots and vipers.

We do believe there are sound criticisms to be made along the lines of 4, 5 and 6 though we consider them relatively minor and able to be easily accomodated.

“I do not understand how any ambassador would think that the issues of the target resolution covered by arguments 1, 2, 3, 7 are not problematic in any way. Care to explain your reasoning, ambassador?”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire