Draft: Ban of Censorship of Media

[Linux and the X]

What would be worth clarifying is freedom to receive information.

Care to explain more...

Freedom of Expression guarantees the right "to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal". However, it says nothing about the consumer of works. For example, it would be permitted to have a law forbidding buying a book (or, more generally, a class of media).

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Look, this was already explained the last time someone tried submitting this. Resolution #30 requires nations to "respect and uphold" the right of expression in all applicable law. This means that any bad-faith attempts to infringe on this right would be illegal (and, just to be sure, bad faith is also addressed in the final clause). Banning a book (or, if you will, "an entire class of media") would constitute an infringement on free expression, and would therefore be disallowed under current WA law. The only allowances nations are given are to prevent defamation, fraud, breaches of privacy, incitements to violence or disorder, and obscene speech, as well as an additional allowance to protect national security. Now, pertaining to that last point, if you wanted to introduce an additional resolution protecting Freedom of Information against overly and unnecessarily secretive governments, be my guest. But censorship in public media is already covered.

[Zirconim]

I'm all for it, but it won't work.

[Globexanter]

It's its own country ,the governement owns it, well it's a Diplomacy, but. If somthing threatens the governement, like a riot, they are allowed to stop it.

[Darenjo]

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...?

Count Darenjo in. I'll see if I can get Rykkland to take a look.

I only wish we could ban the politicization of the media. But that would be infringing on freedom of expression, which i don't think is worth sacrificing.

[Karakcha]

The Aggieland of Bergnovinaia shall enjoy the Republic of Karakcha's full support of this bill.

[Avoin Mieli]

The Republic of Avoin Mieli would like to commend you on your vigilance in the ongoing war on Civil Liberties! Expect our vote on the WA Floor!

[Manticore Reborn]

The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn finds that the lack of a protection for national security reasons will not allow us to support this proposal.

--David Hammerer Adjunct to Earl White Haven who has been recalled to New Manticore for consultations with the King.

[The Ainocran Embassy]

The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn finds that the lack of a protection for national security reasons will not allow us to support this proposal.

--David Hammerer Adjunct to Earl White Haven who has been recalled to New Manticore for consultations with the King.

ooc

check your tea you just agreed with me again

[Glen-Rhodes]

Look, this was already explained the last time someone tried submitting this. Resolution #30 requires nations to "respect and uphold" the right of expression in all applicable law. This means that any bad-faith attempts to infringe on this right would be illegal (and, just to be sure, bad faith is also addressed in the final clause). Banning a book (or, if you will, "an entire class of media") would constitute an infringement on free expression, and would therefore be disallowed under current WA law. The only allowances nations are given are to prevent defamation, fraud, breaches of privacy, incitements to violence or disorder, and obscene speech, as well as an additional allowance to protect national security. Now, pertaining to that last point, if you wanted to introduce an additional resolution protecting Freedom of Information against overly and unnecessarily secretive governments, be my guest. But censorship in public media is already covered.

Did everybody overlook this, or something?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Look, this was already explained the last time someone tried submitting this. Resolution #30 requires nations to "respect and uphold" the right of expression in all applicable law. This means that any bad-faith attempts to infringe on this right would be illegal (and, just to be sure, bad faith is also addressed in the final clause). Banning a book (or, if you will, "an entire class of media") would constitute an infringement on free expression, and would therefore be disallowed under current WA law. The only allowances nations are given are to prevent defamation, fraud, breaches of privacy, incitements to violence or disorder, and obscene speech, as well as an additional allowance to protect national security. Now, pertaining to that last point, if you wanted to introduce an additional resolution protecting Freedom of Information against overly and unnecessarily secretive governments, be my guest. But censorship in public media is already covered.

In short, I think Freedom of Expression is general overall, so all media forms should be covered from Ms. Harper's point of view.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I am willing to request mod intervention on this.

[Phing Phong]

You can count on the support of Phing Phong.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I am willing to request mod intervention on this.

If it's submitted, it should be deleted. Either way, this topic needs to be locked if people are going to keep coming in and 'supporting' it.

[Bergnovinaia]

It's not submitted, but I did ask for a mod ruling.

[Darenjo]

Look, this was already explained the last time someone tried submitting this. Resolution #30 requires nations to "respect and uphold" the right of expression in all applicable law. This means that any bad-faith attempts to infringe on this right would be illegal (and, just to be sure, bad faith is also addressed in the final clause). Banning a book (or, if you will, "an entire class of media") would constitute an infringement on free expression, and would therefore be disallowed under current WA law. The only allowances nations are given are to prevent defamation, fraud, breaches of privacy, incitements to violence or disorder, and obscene speech, as well as an additional allowance to protect national security. Now, pertaining to that last point, if you wanted to introduce an additional resolution protecting Freedom of Information against overly and unnecessarily secretive governments, be my guest. But censorship in public media is already covered.

Did everybody overlook this, or something?

Totally overlooked it. I am very embarrassed now.

Sorry but I must withdraw my support for the proposal.

[Bergnovinaia]

Er... what if the mods do not think it is redundant.

(Just hypothetical, but I think it is indeed redundant. But I don't want to throw away a perfectly good proposal (in my opinion) with a mods opinion).

[Darenjo]

Er... what if the mods do not think it is redundant.

(Just hypothetical, but I think it is indeed redundant. But I don't want to throw away a perfectly good proposal (in my opinion) with a mods opinion).

If the mods agree that it is not redundant, we will restore our support. As of now, we wait for the mods' opinion.

[The REAL Glasers]

I still don't think it's far enough. Make it so that private businesses cannot alter/confiscate/ban material as well without an artist's consent

Also, get rid of Article B, it blows the whole legislation apart and destroys artistic integrity, especially considering how wishy-washy the wording is since terms like "explicit content" are not defined and can be interpreted the way any member state wants.

This isn't really a ban, just a thinly veiled attempt to give people rights that other nations could still gladly take away anyway. I do not support this.

[NERVUN]

For those who have been waiting, the legal opinion has been issued by the Office of the Secritariate regarding this draft for the consideration of the members of the General Assembly.