Draft: Ban of Censorship of Media

[Bergnovinaia]

Ok... let's give another go an this, shall we!

As always, comments are appreciated!

Draft: Ban of Censorship of Media
Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

Draft: Ban of Censorship of Media
Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

Description:

The General Assembly,

REALIZING that currently, nations can censor, confiscate, or destroy any media source as the deem fit and usually do so, especially if the source threatens to disturb the peace and create public unrest;

NOTING and AFFIRMING that is the right of every nation to encourage certain religions and political types as they deem fit;

BELIEVES, however, that if citizens of all WA nations had equal unrestricted access to any and all forms of media, both education and democracy would be exponentially benefited;

DEFINES "media censorship" as follows:

Media censorship: The act of the governments of WA nations destroying, confiscating, censoring, or altering of media source provider or any media source in any way containing any information.

DEFINES the "media confiscation" as follows:

Government officials seize the same piece of media from any number citizens at any given time without the consent of the citizens.

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

A) Forbids government censorship or confiscation of any piece of media except as stated in Article B.
B) Allows member state to censor, confiscate, or not release pieces of media that include any or all of the following: 1)promote general hatred (including but not limited to hatred of other nations, religions, or political views), 2) promote criminal acts such as terrorism, 3)or contain explicit content.
C) Forbids any economic action against media outlets or pieces of media that contain material the nation wishes to censor (such as setting an embargo on the media sources, or raising taxes for on the media source).

*Maybe this isn't enough...?

[Sanctaria]

((What's with the topic title?))

[Bergnovinaia]

((What's with the topic title?))

Sorry... I fixed it. I just saved it as "A" while I was working on it, and forgot to change it.

[Freeoplis]

Definitely a proposal we would be prepared to support, count us in.

[Krioval]

This needs almost a complete overhaul before Krioval could consider offering our support. Pretty much by definition, books contain "information". Also, it seems strange that there are enough exceptions to the censorship ban that one could create a reason to censor almost anything and remain in compliance.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why only books? They're rarely used nowadays, at least in Glen-Rhodes. Most 'books' can be found and read online, either through a personal computer or some kind of specialized technology.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Bergnovinaia]

Why only books? They're rarely used nowadays, at least in Glen-Rhodes. Most 'books' can be found and read online, either through a personal computer or some kind of specialized technology.

- Dr. B. Castro

So you're suggesting to make it all media sources...? An excellent idea!

[Quadrimmina]

Put The Republic of Quadrimmina on the "Supporters" list.

[Meekinos]

Draft: Ban of Censorship of Books
Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

Description:

The General Assembly,

REALIZING that currently, nations can censor, confiscate, or destroy any book as the deem fit and usually do so, especially if the literaure threatens to disturb the peace and create public unrest;

That should be "literature".

NOTING and AFFIRMING that is the right of every nation to encourage certain religions and political types as they deem fit;

BELIEVES, however, that if citizens of all WA nations had equal unrestricted access to any and all books, both education and democracy would be exponentially benefited;

DEFINES "book censorship" as follows:

Book censorship: The act of the governments of WA nations destroying, confiscating, censoring, or altering of any book in any way containing any information.

We like the idea but feel "book" is a tad too limited when attempting to tackle censorship.

DEFINES the "book confiscation" as follows:

Government officials seize the same book from any number citizens at any given time without the consent of the citizens.

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

A) Forbids government censorhip or confiscation of any book except as stated in Article B.
B) Allows member state to censor, confiscate, or not release such books that include the following: 1)promote general hatred (including but not limited to hatred of other nations, religions, or political views), 2) promote criminal acts such as terrorism, 3)or contain explicit content.
C) Forbids any economic action agaist books that contain material the nation wishes to censor (such as setting an embargo on the book, or raising taxes for the book).

It should be "censorship" and "against".

[Bergnovinaia]

Okay... now everything was changed to say media source. It reads a bit weird though.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina, via the Reasonable Restriction of Media Act, has illegalized any media outlet from promoting one ideology over others or lying or fearmongering, at the discretion of the federal court system. Any politician who feels unfairly treated by a media outlet can bring suit, and the penalties are both financial and criminal. We would like to make sure that such laws would not be restricted as a result of this resolution. We do not want a "Fox News" to open up again. Not after they helped perpetuate the dictatorship and nearly destroyed the resistance.

[Osthia]

This would be a great Resolution. It seems like it has good strengths. Count me in...except for the fact that I am not WA delegate to Azdun. I will have Raludcia take a look if he can.

[Bergnovinaia]

The Republic of Quadrimmina, via the Reasonable Restriction of Media Act, has illegalized any media outlet from promoting one ideology over others or lying or fearmongering, at the discretion of the federal court system. Any politician who feels unfairly treated by a media outlet can bring suit, and the penalties are both financial and criminal. We would like to make sure that such laws would not be restricted as a result of this resolution. We do not want a "Fox News" to open up again. Not after they helped perpetuate the dictatorship and nearly destroyed the resistance.

That's a good question... but I don't really know how to answer it. My answer, if I had to, would be no, considering that the vague wording of the resolution would allow such action by nations, since they are not cesnoring or confiscating any media source. They are merely doing their duty in the case of a civil suit. As long as the information in the media source is not touched, I would say it's fine, because nowhere in this legislation does it say that nations cannot criminalize the owners of media sources if they create public un-rest.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina, via the Reasonable Restriction of Media Act, has illegalized any media outlet from promoting one ideology over others or lying or fearmongering, at the discretion of the federal court system. Any politician who feels unfairly treated by a media outlet can bring suit, and the penalties are both financial and criminal. We would like to make sure that such laws would not be restricted as a result of this resolution. We do not want a "Fox News" to open up again. Not after they helped perpetuate the dictatorship and nearly destroyed the resistance.

That's a good question... but I don't really know how to answer it. My answer, if I had to, would be no, considering that the vague wording of the resolution would allow such action by nations, since they are not cesnoring or confiscating any media source. They are merely doing their duty in the case of a civil suit. As long as the information in the media source is not touched, I would say it's fine, because nowhere in this legislation does it say that nations cannot criminalize the owners of media sources if they create public un-rest.

It could be argued, however, that criminalizing media sources for providing untrue or fearmongering content violates a ban on censorship. We'd like a more restrictive definition on censorship on this resolution if we are to support it.

Otherwise, we are very happy with it.

[Bergnovinaia]

Feel free to make suggestions for the definition, ambassador, seeing as my definitions don't really fit what your aiming at.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

There's a category that goes better with this in our opinion: Free Press. I could try again at this except at media level, but there were fears that the draft clashed with GA#30 last time.

[Linux and the X]

What, exactly, is "explicit content"?

[Mikedor]

What about in times of war? Some censorship may be necessary, if only for operational security.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'm confused. So this isn't enough?:

Freedom of Expression

...Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;...

[Ainocra]

There would have to be a national security exemption and the bit about explicit material would have to be removed before we could support this

[Quadrimmina]

There would have to be a national security exemption and the bit about explicit material would have to be removed before we could support this

We agree about the national security exemption, however we understand that nations may want the right to censor explicit material (such as bleeping out sounds or putting bars over genitalia. Censorship in that regard should be allowed.

[Kahanistan]

The Government of Kahanistan agrees that the explicit materials clause needs to be removed before we can support it. The clause against promoting illegal activities may be used in some nations to, for example, arrest advocates of legalised cannabis in addition to terrorists. This is a problem for us.

[Bergnovinaia]

I'm confused. So this isn't enough?:

Freedom of Expression

...Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;...

Wow... I think that was the problem last time with the resolution too... Um, yep. I think this is redudant. Silly me.

[Linux and the X]

What would be worth clarifying is freedom to receive information.

[Bergnovinaia]

What would be worth clarifying is freedom to receive information.

Care to explain more...