[CHALLENGE] Repeal "Protecting Press Freedoms"

[The Ice States]

Posting this in a challenge thread since it's been marked legal and has no drafting thread on here.

-Challenged proposal: link.
-Rules violated: Honest Mistake, Game Mechanics

I believe that it is an honest mistake for the repeal to claim that,

the resolution does not prohibit member states from restricting the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for reasons that are not permitted by extant World Assembly legislation,

as the target explicitly

Orders that journalists or news organizations not be subject to civil or criminal penalties for the content they produce by member state governments beyond [restrictions "permitted by extant World Assembly legislation"]

If a member nation is to "restrict the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organisations", that would require somehow enforcing penalties upon said "journalists or news organisations"; which is explicitly prohibited by the target. A restriction with no penalties attached is not a restriction; a member nation cannot reasonably claim that they have imposed a restriction on drunk driving such that drunk driving is prohibited, if anyone can engage in drunk driving without them or anyone else being penalised for the same.

The proposal also declares, "Hereby repeals the “Press Freedom Act”"; notably, Press Freedom Act not being the name of the target. Is this a Game Mechanics violation, as a repeal can repeal the target for which it was submitted only, rather than a non-existent "Press Freedom Act"? Alternatively, can "Press Freedom Act" be dismissed as an alias for the resolution Protecting Press Freedoms, so the proposal would not be illegal for Game Mechanics?

I thank the Secretariat for their time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Honest mistake. The claim is rather clear, though convoluted due to the number of negatives. The resolution says that member nations can censor news for reasons given in the WA acquis and only for such reasons per target §§ 2, 3(a). The repeal says that member nations can censor news for other reasons. This seems to be a clear honest mistake.

Title citation. The matter about proper citation of titles is prima facie novel. I doubt the other members would be willing, however, to enforce a titling requirement. (I would be, but then again I'm also the kind of person who has an ideal of total uniformity in forks, knives, plates, etc.)

For interests of developing the record, I have sent a telegram to the repeal author about this challenge.

[Henrictus Colony]

I appreciate your kind gesture of keeping me informed about the status of my repeal. I am confident that my proposal is well-founded and reasonable, and I hope that it will receive a fair and favorable consideration from the voters. I am grateful to you, Secretariant, for your valuable insights and suggestions on how to improve my appeal. I will certainly take them into account and apply them to my future work. Thank you for your time and attention.

[Kenmoria]

I’ll reproduce my commentary from the illegal proposals’ thread here:

I believe the above would be a Game Mechanics violation, as the repeal can mechanically only repeal its target, rather than this "Press Freedom Act". Although is it also an Honest Mistake to assert that "the resolution does not prohibit member states from restricting the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for reasons that are not permitted by extant World Assembly legislation", when the target explicitly



?

I cannot see a violation of Game Mechanics. The GenSec decision seemed plainly based in interpreting the boilerplate “General Assembly Resolution #644 […] and rendered null and void” as being part of the repeal’s text. In that interpretation, the repeal has been fairly clear in what resolution it is targeting, given that it had a number, name, and category. The bottom line is colourably interpretable as being a transposition of the name for effect, rather than trying to repeal nonexistent law. Of course, with that said, I fully agree with the violation of Honest Mistake, having nothing to add.

[Wallenburg]

My reading is that the repeal implies inaccurate claims about the target but that its actual letter is compatible with the letter of the target law. The relevant language in "Protecting Press Freedoms" reads:

2. Allows member states to restrict the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for purposes permitted by extant World Assembly legislation.

3. Orders that journalists or news organizations not be (a) subject to civil or criminal penalties for the content they produce by member state governments beyond the exceptions nations may avail themselves of in clause (2),

A lax reading of this conditional permission to restrict journalism might seem to render untrue the repeal's claim that "the resolution does not prohibit member states from restricting the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for reasons that are not permitted by extant World Assembly legislation". However, this is a false reading. The target prohibits legal penalties for content not already rendered a legitimate legal target by existing WA law, but it does not prohibit restrictions in general. In fact, the target explicitly grants member states broad power to restrict journalism outside of these legal penalties. Such actions may include refusing certification or licensing, or revoking or withholding funds, sponsorships or employment. True, the target resolution prohibits some restrictions, but it remains true to say that it does not prohibit member states from imposing some restrictions. The proposal as written is legal.

[The Ice States]

My reading is that the repeal implies inaccurate claims about the target but that its actual letter is compatible with the letter of the target law. The relevant language in "Protecting Press Freedoms" reads:

2. Allows member states to restrict the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for purposes permitted by extant World Assembly legislation.

3. Orders that journalists or news organizations not be (a) subject to civil or criminal penalties for the content they produce by member state governments beyond the exceptions nations may avail themselves of in clause (2),

A lax reading of this conditional permission to restrict journalism might seem to render untrue the repeal's claim that "the resolution does not prohibit member states from restricting the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for reasons that are not permitted by extant World Assembly legislation". However, this is a false reading. The target prohibits legal penalties for content not already rendered a legitimate legal target by existing WA law, but it does not prohibit restrictions in general. In fact, the target explicitly grants member states broad power to restrict journalism outside of these legal penalties. Such actions may include refusing certification or licensing, or revoking or withholding funds, sponsorships or employment. True, the target resolution prohibits some restrictions, but it remains true to say that it does not prohibit member states from imposing some restrictions. The proposal as written is legal.

I don't think this is a colourable interpretation of the word "restrict" as used in this repeal. In the case of "refusing certification or licensing", this would presumably result in penalties if the journalists or news organisations continue reporting despite said lack of certification; so indirectly there are still some kind of "civil or criminal penalties for the content they produce" (if there are no penalties for reporting despite not being licensed, then revoking licensing hardly seems like a restriction of any kind). Similarly, I do not believe that "revoking or withholding funds, sponsorships or employment" is a restriction on the reporting itself; rather, it is a restriction on the distribution of said "funds, sponsorships, or employment". The reporting can still freely happen, it is just no longer funded/sponsored/etc by the government.

[Wallenburg]

My reading is that the repeal implies inaccurate claims about the target but that its actual letter is compatible with the letter of the target law. The relevant language in "Protecting Press Freedoms" reads:

2. Allows member states to restrict the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for purposes permitted by extant World Assembly legislation.

3. Orders that journalists or news organizations not be (a) subject to civil or criminal penalties for the content they produce by member state governments beyond the exceptions nations may avail themselves of in clause (2),

A lax reading of this conditional permission to restrict journalism might seem to render untrue the repeal's claim that "the resolution does not prohibit member states from restricting the dissemination of reporting by journalists or news organizations for reasons that are not permitted by extant World Assembly legislation". However, this is a false reading. The target prohibits legal penalties for content not already rendered a legitimate legal target by existing WA law, but it does not prohibit restrictions in general. In fact, the target explicitly grants member states broad power to restrict journalism outside of these legal penalties. Such actions may include refusing certification or licensing, or revoking or withholding funds, sponsorships or employment. True, the target resolution prohibits some restrictions, but it remains true to say that it does not prohibit member states from imposing some restrictions. The proposal as written is legal.

I don't think this is a colourable interpretation of the word "restrict" as used in this repeal. In the case of "refusing certification or licensing", this would presumably result in penalties if the journalists or news organisations continue reporting despite said lack of certification; so indirectly there are still some kind of "civil or criminal penalties for the content they produce" (if there are no penalties for reporting despite not being licensed, then revoking licensing hardly seems like a restriction of any kind).

Those are not, however, "civil or criminal penalties for the content they produce". Those are civil or criminal penalties for broadcasting/reporting without the appropriate credentials. Not only is this a colorable interpretation, I doubt whether a colorable interpretation exists to the contrary.

Similarly, I do not believe that "revoking or withholding funds, sponsorships or employment" is a restriction on the reporting itself; rather, it is a restriction on the distribution of said "funds, sponsorships, or employment". The reporting can still freely happen, it is just no longer funded/sponsored/etc by the government.

Firing a reporter or causing a reporter to lose their job for what they write, or causing an undesirable journalistic outlet to go under due to loss of revenue is absolutely a restriction on journalism. Journalism does not happen to nearly the same degree where reporting on a subject has a causal relationship with business failure or personal destitution. This argument here seems to circularly depend on the incorrect assumption that restriction only occurs where the state explicitly declares something illegal.

[The Ice States]

[Snipped]

Can you define what you believe constitutes a government "restriction" on journalism? Further, what standard would you apply for interpreting the meaning of repeal text?

As to the final sentence of your post, I believe that government restriction absolutely implies that violating the restriction is unlawful. Obviously if a reporter is fired, less reporting would occur; yet not all acts by the government that reduce an activity are a restriction on said activity. It is not a restriction on the pointy-desk-corner industry to subsidise a company which happens to sell non-pointy desk corners. TFD Legal Dictionary, for instance, defines a "restriction" as any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision" -- all of which hold the force of law.

[The Ice States]

The author has withdrawn the challenged proposal.

[Henrictus Colony]

Dear The Ice States,

I am writing to thank you for your feedback on my bill. I appreciate your well-meaning telegram and your willingness to help me improve my bill.

I understand your concerns about the bill, and I will take them into consideration as I revise it. I do not want to pander to people, but I also want to be agreeable and intelligent. I believe that I can find a way to balance these two goals.

I am grateful for your help, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

Hanover Colony
Department of Worldwide Legislation

[Goobergunchia]

I understand your concerns about the bill, and I will take them into consideration as I revise it. I do not want to pander to people, but I also want to be agreeable and intelligent. I believe that I can find a way to balance these two goals.

I'd suggest that you post your proposal on these forums before submitting so you can get as much feedback as possible first.

This has been an OOC post.

[The Ice States]

I understand your concerns about the bill, and I will take them into consideration as I revise it. I do not want to pander to people, but I also want to be agreeable and intelligent. I believe that I can find a way to balance these two goals.

I'd suggest that you post your proposal on these forums before submitting so you can get as much feedback as possible first.

I agree with this.

[Wallenburg]

[Snipped]

Can you define what you believe constitutes a government "restriction" on journalism?

A government action with the function of restricting journalism.

Further, what standard would you apply for interpreting the meaning of repeal text?

I apply the standard of a repeal's language, read plainly, adopting an at least colorable interpretation of its target, in concordance with RNT.

As to the final sentence of your post, I believe that government restriction absolutely implies that violating the restriction is unlawful. Obviously if a reporter is fired, less reporting would occur; yet not all acts by the government that reduce an activity are a restriction on said activity. It is not a restriction on the pointy-desk-corner industry to subsidise a company which happens to sell non-pointy desk corners. TFD Legal Dictionary, for instance, defines a "restriction" as any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision" -- all of which hold the force of law.

A law dictionary is obviously going to concern itself with a strictly legal scope of the word "restriction". Restriction is not, however, a strictly legal term. It and its associated forms are used habitually and frequently in non-legal contexts. There is no reason to require a repeal to adopt a much narrower definition of a common word when the broader definition is the more natural and intuitive fit.

[Henrictus Colony]

[Snipped]

Can you define what you believe constitutes a government "restriction" on journalism? Further, what standard would you apply for interpreting the meaning of repeal text?

As to the final sentence of your post, I believe that government restriction absolutely implies that violating the restriction is unlawful. Obviously if a reporter is fired, less reporting would occur; yet not all acts by the government that reduce an activity are a restriction on said activity. It is not a restriction on the pointy-desk-corner industry to subsidise a company which happens to sell non-pointy desk corners. TFD Legal Dictionary, for instance, defines a "restriction" as any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision" -- all of which hold the force of law.

I clearly wasn't referring to the legal definition in your specifically choosen dictionary. I'm talking about a government restriction on a news organization which is a law, regulation, or policy that limits the organization's ability to report the news.

These restrictions can take many forms, such as:

Censorship: The government may censor news stories that it deems to be harmful or offensive. This can include preventing stories from being published, broadcasting, or distributed.

Licensing requirements: The government may require news organizations to obtain a license in order to operate. This can be a time-consuming and expensive process, and it can give the government the power to revoke a license if an organization does not comply with its regulations.

Financial penalties: The government may impose fines or other financial penalties on news organizations that violate its regulations. This can make it difficult for organizations to operate and can discourage them from reporting on sensitive or controversial topics.

Access restrictions: The government may restrict news organizations' access to information or sources. This can make it difficult for organizations to report on important stories.

Physical threats and intimidation: The government may use physical threats or intimidation to silence news organizations or their staff. This can create a climate of fear and self-censorship.