[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom of Expression"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Freedom of Expression"
Target

---

The World Assembly,

Resolving that it is profoundly immoral to permit corporations and legal persons to lie to consumers,

Believing that society as a whole can have justifiable reasons to restrict expression for public safety and to prevent the consumption or publication of materials that would damage public health, social order, or needless antagonisation,

Seeing that society should have the ability to regulate adverts and their means of distribution, eg prohibiting tobacco advertisements from being shown on childrens' television channels or placing limits on where or what can be depicted in such advertising, and

Confident that there will be a scrambling of legislative efforts to replace this resolution with more appropriate legislation that permits society to protect itself, hereby:

Repeals GA c 30 "Freedom of Expression".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Oh noes! You're getting rid of expression!
No, I'm not.

People doesn't include corporations!
Yes, it does, legal personhood is a thing.

Lies are not protected!
People can believe false things.

There is no precedent for your interpretation!
Read the forum more. viewtopic.php?p=33932541#p33932541

[Stoskavanya]

Speech intended to swindle customers that is false or misleading should not be entitled to any protection. Full support.

[United Massachusetts]

"Aye. No objections."

[Merni]

What is "GA c 30" Shouldn't it be GA#30, or 30 GA, or something?

Otherwise, I like it.

[New Raffica]

Full support

[Kenmoria]

"Seems good to me, support."

[United Massachusetts]

What is "GA c 30" Shouldn't it be GA#30, or 30 GA, or something?

Otherwise, I like it.

"We demand an answer to this question."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OSCOLA 4e s 2.4.3, with regnal year removed

[A Bright Future]

I was thinking about this last week. I would interpret academic fraud as counting as allowing prevention of misleading consumers. E.g. if a tobacco company says smoking is healthy that would amount to an fraudulent representation of scientific knowledge on smoking. I have a draft proposal to clarify academic fraud which would be better than repealing this relatively well drafted resolution. Freedom of speech would not be protected while this resolution is not in effect and as far as I know there is no replacement on the cards.

[Liberimery]

The Democratic States of Liberimery request that the terms "Public Health", ""Social Order", and "Needless Antagonism" as used in paragraph 2 of this resolution. While on its face it does meet our laws on commercial speech rights, these terms can be broadly interpreted.

We also would request a legal ruling on a resolution that would either amend GA#30 to include commercial speech provision OR if a new proposal would not conflict with GA#30. This preserves protections provide by GA#30 that would be eliminated by a repeal.

Until such questions are answered, while I am understanding the goal of your proposal, we find the methods dangerous and will oppose. It is far better to allow the problem to persist if the cure is the death of even one persons beliefs at the hands of their government.

[Kenmoria]

The Democratic States of Liberimery request that the terms "Public Health", ""Social Order", and "Needless Antagonism" as used in paragraph 2 of this resolution. While on its face it does meet our laws on commercial speech rights, these terms can be broadly interpreted.

We also would request a legal ruling on a resolution that would either amend GA#30 to include commercial speech provision OR if a new proposal would not conflict with GA#30. This preserves protections provide by GA#30 that would be eliminated by a repeal.

(OOC: It is illegal to amend a resolution, it is also impossible for technical reasons. In addition, any proposal that would illegalise fraudulent commercial speech would most likely contradict GA #30.)

[Liberimery]

(OOC: It is illegal to amend a resolution, it is also impossible for technical reasons. In addition, any proposal that would illegalise fraudulent commercial speech would most likely contradict GA #30.)

OOC: Commercial Speech is not specifically protected at any point in GA#30. Nor does it fail a test of an unreasonable government interest. The government would be on the hook for a misadvertised medical product that they might have to pay compensation if The have state provided healthcare or impact the economy if the business goes bankrupt. A previous poster that commercial speech could be a form of academic dishonesty. Fraud is specifically not a crime, which is a superset of almost all illicit commercial speech. In real life The United States does have commercial speech laws that doesn't conflict with Free Speech protections nor required a repeal and rewrite In fact, US jurisprudence recognizes commercial speech as separate from Political Speech and unprotected speech. An originalist reading of GA#30 will clearly identify clear statements that would allow for a separation of commercial and political statement and less protections for the former.

[Christian Democrats]

Against.

We don't believe the defects in Freedom of Expression are sufficient to warrant a repeal, at least without a proposed replacement resolution that would adopt an almost equally open stance on the rights of speakers.

[A Bright Future]

Does anyone think there may be a case for honest mistake legal challenge here?

Honest Mistake: Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348
No clause refers to exact content of the resolution being repealed? No clause.
Each clause only states the reverse of the arguments in the resolution? Each clause.
Content does not address resolution? No. Reference to resolution only in clause calling for repeal and the one being certain of replacement.
Misrepresentation: society can already protect itself under FoE to a degree, the penultimate clause is misleading in that sense.

[State of SouthCarolina]

This proposal is opening Pandora's box to fix a section of a previous Resolution. It is not worth going down this track. If states do not agree with the GA #30, they would of simply withdrawn from the WA. The WA can not function without this pillar of democratic thought. We at U.W.S. will vote against this proposal if it gets to that stage. We would hope that other democratic regions would do the same.

[Kenmoria]

Does anyone think there may be a case for honest mistake legal challenge here?

Honest Mistake: Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348
No clause refers to exact content of the resolution being repealed? No clause.
Each clause only states the reverse of the arguments in the resolution? Each clause.
Content does not address resolution? No. Reference to resolution only in clause calling for repeal and the one being certain of replacement.
Misrepresentation: society can already protect itself under FoE to a degree, the penultimate clause is misleading in that sense.

I would argue there is no cause for an honest mistake violation, because the repeal is specific to the target resolution, as it would not work for any others. It is not a repeal going "It's bad and harms sovereignty!" as that works for any resolution.

[Edrarin]

"The Edrarin Federation too does not choose to support this proposal for exact reasons my two other colleagues have stated"

[Uan aa Boa]

The target resolution "affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal." I fail to see how this prevents state regulation of advertising and other corporate claims and therefore believe this repeal to be unnecessary.

[Reformed Badad]

The Reformed Republic of Badad is inclined to agree with the other dissenters of this repeal. Your reasoning for putting this repeal into motion has little to do with what the majority of G.A. #30 is protecting, as most of it not only is describing something that is considered a basic human right for the individual but as Liberimery stated, commercial speech isn't specifically protected and can clearly be separated from protected forms of expression.
I'm concerned most who voted never read the original resolution at all and simply read the repeal, which I would've agreed with otherwise.

[Kinth]

Kinth finds this appalling and misleading. In Kinth's understanding of GA #30 it does not protect corporate speech. It can also be argued that any false corporate speech is already restricted by GA #30, under Academic Fraud.

In addition, Kinth is saddened that so many have thus far voted for this repeal, likely without actually reading GA #30, or knowing that while this resolution states that it is "confident" replacements for GA #30 will quickly follow, there are currently NONE proposed. Also horrified that some may be voting for this repeal because they do not any sort of Freedom of Expression, and will vote against any replacement of GA #30.

Kinth would also like to remind people that, in many cases, "Repeal and Replace" is code for "Repeal and Ignore".

[Kenmoria]

Kinth finds this appalling and misleading. In Kinth's understanding of GA #30 it does not protect corporate speech. It can also be argued that any false corporate speech is already restricted by GA #30, under Academic Fraud.

In addition, Kinth is saddened that so many have thus far voted for this repeal, likely without actually reading GA #30, or knowing that while this resolution states that it is "confident" replacements for GA #30 will quickly follow, there are currently NONE proposed. Also horrified that some may be voting for this repeal because they do not any sort of Freedom of Expression, and will vote against any replacement of GA #30.

Kinth would also like to remind people that, in many cases, "Repeal and Replace" is code for "Repeal and Ignore".

There is actually a replacement currently being drafted.

[Uan aa Boa]

Yes, but that draft is too fundamentally flawed to be relevant to the current vote. We have no idea what a replacement would look like.

[Kinth]

There is actually a replacement currently being drafted.

Agreed that that draft is fundamentally flawed. In addition, there is a big difference between a draft, and a proposal. Kinth is still firmly against this repeal.

In addition, Kenmoria's own attitude towards other nations requesting changes, or expressing concerns with that draft causes Kinth to firmly believe that Kenmoria, along with the original author of that draft, have less than honorable intentions.

CLARIFICATION: This post is directed towards the DRAFT REPLACEMENT... NOT the repeal

[Eumangi]

The repeal resolution is about only a few topics of Freedom of Expression, which is much wider, and grants freedom and dignity to every way to see the world, ad long ad this way is not offensive to anyone, nor harms anyone, as plainly exposed.
Thus, if someone thinks "Freedom of Expression" allows corporations to decept citiziens, if anything is needed it is an amendement, not the repeal of the law.
We stand against.