[WITHDRAWN] Media Content Rating Act

[Quadrimmina]

Media Content Rating Act
Approved by the Board of World Assembly Resolutions
Category:Moral Decency
Strength:MIld


THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

UNDERSTANDING that much media contains content that is considered objectionable to many people, and that nations have differing and confusing systems for rating and displaying the content present.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that media between nations can have different measures of what is objectionable, and thus a standard measure is required, especially to protect those who enter other nations.

RECOGNIZING that nations tend to have to rate in their own nations works from other nations, and that this is a tedious process that can be corrected by a universal rating system.

HOPING to ensure the proper information about the content is distributed regarding its content and to ensure that consumers are informed about their purchasing choices.s

HEREBY CREATES the World Assembly Ratings Bureau (WARB), which will rate all media produced in a World Assembly nation, and rate it as belonging to one of the following criteria, based on its content of violence, sexual themes, portrayal of crime and drug use, and language.

DEFINES media for the purpose of this resolution as all audiovisual programs that are created with the intent to be distributed for mass viewership, including but not limited to motion pictures, television shows, music, and video games.

URGES producers of media as defined by this act to have their media checked by the WARB, but does not mandate it.

ENCOURAGES venues at which this media is portrayed to deny to portray media that is not WARB rated.

MANDATES that all media reviewed by the WARB must have all promotional material as well as the actual physical packaging marked with the rating provided by the WARB, and that all visual media must have the rating depicted at least once during the course of the program.

URGES nations with their own ratings boards to inform their citizens about the equivalency of WARB ratings to their own.

DECLARES the ratings that the WARB will provide are on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not applicable, 1 being extremely low amount of objectionable content, and 10 being extreme amount of objectionable content, in the following categories:
i) Violence
ii) Sexual content
iii) Profanity and language
iv) Drug themes
v) Portrayal of crime

ENCOURAGES further legislation by nations to ensure that consumers are informed about the ratings provided.

CO-AUTHORED by Freeoplis.

[Freeoplis]

We foresee a problem with an international committee deciding the ratings of films, some Nations are liberal and others are fundamentally religious, such a rating system deciding by a group of people will not be non bias and may either be too liberal or too conservative to suit all WA Nations.

[Quadrimmina]

We foresee a problem with an international committee deciding the ratings of films, some Nations are liberal and others are fundamentally religious, such a rating system deciding by a group of people will not be non bias and may either be too liberal or too conservative to suit all WA Nations.

That's why we proposed an equivalency system, where a nation can say, a 17 from the WA board is a 12 in our nation or something.

[Grays Harbor]

Too far into WA Micromanagement sphere. Nations can determine what coding system best suits their own particular culture. What may be offensive to some may be commonplace to others.

[Unibot]

Eduard nodded to the proposal author, "I personally find all of the pacifism, vegetarianism, abstinence and clean wholesome language in kid's films today to be despicable. I'd support a Content Rating to ensure that kid's get the healthy glorification of violence, unbalanced nutrition, sex, drugs and profanity that a child needs to develop into a well-rounded individual. You have my support, ambassador."

[Quadrimmina]

Eduard nodded to the proposal author, "I personally find all of the pacifism, vegetarianism, abstinence and clean wholesome language in kid's films today to be despicable. I'd support a Content Rating to ensure that kid's get the healthy glorification of violence, unbalanced nutrition, sex, drugs and profanity that a child needs to develop into a well-rounded individual. You have my support, ambassador."

Well then in your nation you can encourage the viewing of 17 and 18 films in your nation.

Too far into WA Micromanagement sphere. Nations can determine what coding system best suits their own particular culture. What may be offensive to some may be commonplace to others.

This is true, but a problem arises when someone from one nation visits another.

[Freeoplis]

We foresee a problem with an international committee deciding the ratings of films, some Nations are liberal and others are fundamentally religious, such a rating system deciding by a group of people will not be non bias and may either be too liberal or too conservative to suit all WA Nations.

That's why we proposed an equivalency system, where a nation can say, a 17 from the WA board is a 12 in our nation or something.

What then is achieved if Nations can use a so called "equivalency system", there is no reason to classify films just for the sake of it, what does this proposal hope to change?

[Quadrimmina]

We foresee a problem with an international committee deciding the ratings of films, some Nations are liberal and others are fundamentally religious, such a rating system deciding by a group of people will not be non bias and may either be too liberal or too conservative to suit all WA Nations.

That's why we proposed an equivalency system, where a nation can say, a 17 from the WA board is a 12 in our nation or something.

What then is achieved if Nations can use a so called "equivalency system", there is no reason to classify films just for the sake of it, what does this proposal hope to change?

The fact that if someone comes from a country with a rigid rating system to one like Quadrimmina, where sexually suggestive themes are allowed from age 12 and porno from age 15, they would not know what to expect. Essentially, a uniform system allows people to know what to look for. I'd be open to a system less dependent on age and more on a 1->10 scale of objectionability, if that would make more sense.

[Freeoplis]

hmmmmm *nods to the foreign minister* the esteemed ambassador has a point.

How about rather than age, as that always will cause problems with those races that age differently than most sapient civilizations or an abstract scale, how about a system that rates films 1-10 in the main offensive categories eg sex, violence, drug use and any others that seem important, this would move things away from age and would label whilst still maintaining the purpose of the legislation?

[Grays Harbor]

Eduard nodded to the proposal author, "I personally find all of the pacifism, vegetarianism, abstinence and clean wholesome language in kid's films today to be despicable. I'd support a Content Rating to ensure that kid's get the healthy glorification of violence, unbalanced nutrition, sex, drugs and profanity that a child needs to develop into a well-rounded individual. You have my support, ambassador."

Well then in your nation you can encourage the viewing of 17 and 18 films in your nation.

Too far into WA Micromanagement sphere. Nations can determine what coding system best suits their own particular culture. What may be offensive to some may be commonplace to others.

This is true, but a problem arises when someone from one nation visits another.

Tourism and business trips are not sufficient reason to micromanage what don't need micromanaging. That is what tourist brochures and taking a bit of responsibility to educate yourself about the nation you are visiting are for. This really isn't something which needs WA hand-holding.

[Unibot]

We foresee a problem with an international committee deciding the ratings of films, some Nations are liberal and others are fundamentally religious, such a rating system deciding by a group of people will not be non bias and may either be too liberal or too conservative to suit all WA Nations.

That's why we proposed an equivalency system, where a nation can say, a 17 from the WA board is a 12 in our nation or something.

What then is achieved if Nations can use a so called "equivalency system", there is no reason to classify films just for the sake of it, what does this proposal hope to change?

The fact that if someone comes from a country with a rigid rating system to one like Quadrimmina, where sexually suggestive themes are allowed from age 12 and porno from age 15, they would not know what to expect. Essentially, a uniform system allows people to know what to look for. I'd be open to a system less dependent on age and more on a 1->10 scale of objectionability, if that would make more sense.

"And who decides what culture is more moral than another culture? Personally I'd never let anyone under 18 view any of the disgusting crap that some nations show their children, with sock puppets, teddy bears, cute voices and happy music. Children should be structured with violence, intolerance and sex.. I do not want our nation's philosophies ranked on a scale of 'objectionability' ... not everyone believes in the same morals, ambassador, and thus no degree of morality can portray all of our cultures." Eduard stated, as he drank some scotch down and continued watching some 'hardcore' videos (that he ripped off a decadent internet site) of a talking cartoon hippo who was befriending a talking giraffe. They sang a song. Everyone was happy. The birds danced. When he felt like getting really dirty tonight, if nobody is watching, Eduard might even consider drinking Orange Juice or Milk instead of Scotch.

[Freeoplis]

Tourism and business trips are not sufficient reason to micromanage what don't need micromanaging. That is what tourist brochures and taking a bit of responsibility to educate yourself about the nation you are visiting are for. This really isn't something which needs WA hand-holding.

That reminds us . . . where did that sexual tourism proposal go to that was on our desk only a few days ago . . . *flicks through the huge pile of papers on desk* . . . ah yes there it is . . . *leaves chamber to draft a comment clutching a bottle of scotch for good measure*

[Grays Harbor]

Lord Eugene, as he headed back towards his office, happened to glance at what Eduard was watching. He just shook his head, muttering, "Gwyrdroi"¹.


¹

pervert

[Auremena]

I would vote no, because it is up to the viewer to determine if they can "handle it"

[Unibot]

Lord Eugene, as he headed back towards his office, happened to glance at what Eduard was watching. He just shook his head, muttering, "Gwyrdroi"¹.


¹

pervert

Eduard threw the television out of the window, and waved at Lord Eugene.. he grabbed the magazine on his desk with the most naked, voluptuous, endowed and demeaned woman on its cover that he could find. Heir looked around nervously to the other ambassadors, and drank some hard liquor from his flask to ease the tension.

The ambassadors stared at him.

Eduard scowled, "What!?"

[Quadrimmina]

I would vote no, because it is up to the viewer to determine if they can "handle it"

Of course it is. Theres no age mandate. It's simply a rating bureau giving an objective rating and its up to you or parents if they can handle it.

Eduard nodded to the proposal author, "I personally find all of the pacifism, vegetarianism, abstinence and clean wholesome language in kid's films today to be despicable. I'd support a Content Rating to ensure that kid's get the healthy glorification of violence, unbalanced nutrition, sex, drugs and profanity that a child needs to develop into a well-rounded individual. You have my support, ambassador."

Well then in your nation you can encourage the viewing of 17 and 18 films in your nation.

Too far into WA Micromanagement sphere. Nations can determine what coding system best suits their own particular culture. What may be offensive to some may be commonplace to others.

This is true, but a problem arises when someone from one nation visits another.

Tourism and business trips are not sufficient reason to micromanage what don't need micromanaging. That is what tourist brochures and taking a bit of responsibility to educate yourself about the nation you are visiting are for. This really isn't something which needs WA hand-holding.

Not only that, but when media is sent between nations, they each have to rate it. This would allow nations to simply adopt the WA rating if they see fit, and only rerate it if they need to.

Tourism and business trips are not sufficient reason to micromanage what don't need micromanaging. That is what tourist brochures and taking a bit of responsibility to educate yourself about the nation you are visiting are for. This really isn't something which needs WA hand-holding.

That reminds us . . . where did that sexual tourism proposal go to that was on our desk only a few days ago . . . *flicks through the huge pile of papers on desk* . . . ah yes there it is . . . *leaves chamber to draft a comment clutching a bottle of scotch for good measure*

That one was removed due to the recommendation of the Bureau of World Assembly Resolutions.

hmmmmm *nods to the foreign minister* the esteemed ambassador has a point.

How about rather than age, as that always will cause problems with those races that age differently than most sapient civilizations or an abstract scale, how about a system that rates films 1-10 in the main offensive categories eg sex, violence, drug use and any others that seem important, this would move things away from age and would label whilst still maintaining the purpose of the legislation?

This is a fantastic idea. Thank you to the honored ambassador.

[Quadrimmina]

Please review the updated DECLARES clause.

[Freeoplis]

*looks over to the foreign minister* . . . I think we have a winner, this format is something we can support . . . we welcome the honourable delegation's acceptance of the suggestions put forward by this ambassador, we are now in a position to support such legislation.

[Quadrimmina]

*looks over to the foreign minister* . . . I think we have a winner, this format is something we can support . . . we welcome the honourable delegation's acceptance of the suggestions put forward by this ambassador, we are now in a position to support such legislation.

Of course honored ambassador, the idea you proposed is fantastic. Thank you for your contributions to this act.

[TurtleShroom]

IC:

FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF TURTLESHROOM
THE CHANCELLARY CABINET
BOARD OF CENSORS
GRANDMASTER OF DECENCY


MEMBERS OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

On behalf of the TurtleShroom Board of Censors and the government of the Republic as a whole, we commend your brave efforts to establish an attempt to protect the innocents among us- and even the older creatures who don't like being exposed to filth -and keeping the mass media a slight bit purer than it was when you saw it.

We wholeheartedly support this system and encourage its usage in WA nations. We also wish to indicate our commendations of the nation who wrote this in the face of liberal hatred and cries of "free speech". Porn isn't free speech or press: it's naked humans doing unholy filth. It's a good thing the WA isn't conservative; we banned pornography decades ago and never look back.

This is a monumental step into a better world. In this resolution, the World Assembly is truly living up to its goal of making the world a better place, one resolution at a time.

Approve this resolution and ensure a degree of decency remains for the generations of offspring that follow us! Were we in the WA, you'd have our votes!


Regards and Commendation of the Highest Degree,
The Hon. Rev. Jared MacArthurr the Uberz^* PhD, Grandmaster of Decency/Head Chairman of the TurtleShroom Board of Censors

* = "the Uberz" (or "Uz.") is a ceremonial title granted for TurtleShroomers of outstanding merit.



SEE ALSO

[Northern Bavungria]

Media Content Rating Act
Pending Approval from the Board of World Assembly Resolutions
Category:Moral Decency
Strength:MIld


THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

UNDERSTANDING that much media contains content that is considered objectionable to many people, especially to children.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that media between nations can have different measures of what is objectionable, and thus a standard measure is required, especially to protect those who enter other nations.

RECOGNIZING that, to correct this, nations have to rate in their own nations works from other nations, and that this is a tedious process that can be corrected by a universal rating system.

HOPING to ensure the proper information about the content is distributed regarding its content and whether the content is appropriate.

HEREBY CREATES the World Assembly Ratings Bureau (WARB), which will rate all media produced in a World Assembly nation, and rate it as belonging to one of the following criteria, based on its content of violence, sexual themes, portrayal of crime and drug use, and language.

DEFINES media for the purpose of this resolution as all audiovisual programs that are created with the intent to be distributed for mass viewership, including but not limited to motion pictures, television shows, music, and video games.

URGES producers of media as defined by this act to have their media checked by the WARB, but does not mandate it.

ENCOURAGES venues at which this media is portrayed to deny to portray media that is not WARB rated.

MANDATES that all media reviewed by the WARB must have all promotional material as well as the actual physical packaging marked with the rating provided by the WARB, and that all visual media must have the rating depicted at least once during the course of the program.

URGES nations with their own ratings boards to inform their citizens about the equivalency of WARB ratings to their own.

DECLARES the ratings that the WARB will provide are on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not applicable, 1 being extremely low amount of objectionable content, and 10 being extreme amount of objectionable content, in the following categories:
i) Violence
ii) Sexual content
iii) Profanity and language
iv) Drug themes
v) Portrayal of crime

FURTHER DECLARES that the ratings are neither binding to the ages that can be provided.

ENCOURAGES further legislation by nations to ensure that objectionable content is not made available to minors.

My nation does not think the world should decide what we can an can't watch in our own nation. As harsh as it may sound people that come to our nation have to deal with what we show in the media just like they must follow our laws. Although altruistic in a sense this act cannot be supported.

[Quadrimmina]

IC:
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF TURTLESHROOM
THE CHANCELLARY CABINET
BOARD OF CENSORS
GRANDMASTER OF DECENCY


MEMBERS OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

On behalf of the TurtleShroom Board of Censors and the government of the Republic as a whole, we commend your brave efforts to establish an attempt to protect the innocents among us- and even the older creatures who don't like being exposed to filth -and keeping the mass media a slight bit purer than it was when you saw it.

We wholeheartedly support this system and encourage its usage in WA nations. We also wish to indicate our commendations of the nation who wrote this in the face of liberal hatred and cries of "free speech". Porn isn't free speech or press: it's naked humans doing unholy filth. It's a good thing the WA isn't conservative; we banned pornography decades ago and never look back.

This is a monumental step into a better world. In this resolution, the World Assembly is truly living up to its goal of making the world a better place, one resolution at a time.

Approve this resolution and ensure a degree of decency remains for the generations of offspring that follow us! Were we in the WA, you'd have our votes!


Regards and Commendation of the Highest Degree,
The Hon. Rev. Jared MacArthurr the Uberz^* PhD, Grandmaster of Decency/Head Chairman of the TurtleShroom Board of Censors

* = "the Uberz" (or "Uz.") is a ceremonial title granted for TurtleShroomers of outstanding merit.



SEE ALSO

We must note that our nation is indeed a rather liberal nation, but due to this resolution, there will be no doubt about our content when people go to venues in our nation.

My nation does not think the world should decide what we can an can't watch in our own nation. As harsh as it may sound people that come to our nation have to deal with what we show in the media just like they must follow our laws. Although altruistic in a sense this act cannot be supported.

This act does nothing to decide what anyone can or can't watch. It simply ensures that people have information about any possibly objectionable content and lets them decide whether or not to watch it based on the content. It in no way has any mandate as to whether or not someone can watch something.

[Northern Bavungria]

This act just rates shows and those type of things ?

[Quadrimmina]

This act just rates shows and those type of things ?

Pretty much, and lets people and nations decide the rest. If a nation has a rating system, it allows for a uniform system between nations for comparative purposes. If they don't, then it provides consumers with information.

[Neutonica]

Dear colleagues,

Neutonica would like to suggest that instead of using arbitrary numbers to rate the amount of sex, violence, etc, the WARB could test movies on different focus groups, and publish any objections those focus groups might have on some international forum.

However, Neutonica still cannot see any important argument being made in this act's preamble besides the "Think of Our Children" line. This delegate does not know of any definite case where children are indeed being affected by what they see or hear in the media around them. Perhaps, a better justification for this act could be provided.

Dr. Isaac Corrigan
Delegate of Neutonica