NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Freedom of Expression for Organisations

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[DEFEATED] Freedom of Expression for Organisations

Postby Uan aa Boa » Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:06 pm

Freedom of Expression for Organisations

Category: Furtherance of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Uan aa Boa


The World Assembly,

Reaffirming the right of individuals to express themselves freely without fear of reprisal from the state,

Aware that protecting this right counts for little if governments are able to censor political parties, arts organisations, campaigns, civil rights groups, publishers, internet service providers, web hosts and other entities that are not individuals,

Believing that nations should, if they choose, be able to limit the influence of corporations, and of those organisations that seek to promote hatred,

Hereby,

  1. Defines a legal person to be an entity other than an individual that has rights or obligations in law,

  2. Mandates that member states shall extend to legal persons the same rights in regard to free expression as they afford individuals, save that they may impose reasonable restrictions on the free expression of legal persons in order to prevent
    1. disproportionate influence on government by profit-making organisations and those acting under their direction, or on their behalf
    2. incitement of hatred on the basis of race, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender reassignment
    3. denial of historical acts of genocide
  3. Reserves to member states the right to regulate advertising as they see fit, subject to the provisions of prior and unrepealed resolutions,

  4. Clarifies that, for the purpose of this resolution, a reasonable restriction on free expression is one that does not limit expression in significantly more circumstances than is necessary to achieve its legitimate objective,

  5. Emphasises that this resolution does not prevent the regulation of campaign finance or other donations to political organisations
.


Freedom of Expression for Organisations

Category: Furtherance of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Uan aa Boa


The World Assembly,

Applauding protections granted to individuals to express their opinions, and to assemble with others to pursue common goals,

Aware that most individuals do not have the resources to pursue these goals without acting in cooperation with others,

Knowing that legal persons such as political parties, campaign groups, community associations, and other collective entities are thus essential for giving a voice to individuals,

Aware that unrestricted freedom of expression for legal persons can lead to misleading advertising, unwelcome corporate influence on politics, and other negative consequences,

Determined that no person shall be denied access to the public forum,

Hereby,

Makes, for the purposes of this resolution, the following definitions:
  1. A legal person is an entity other than a sapient individual that has rights or obligations in law
  2. Commercial expression is expression intended to promote the purchase of products or services
  3. Political expression is expression intended to influence either the policy and decisions of a national or sub-national government, or public opinion regarding such matters
  4. A reasonable restriction on the commercial or political expression of legal persons is one that does not limit expression in significantly more circumstances than is necessary to achieve its legitimate objective

Resolves that the free expression of legal persons in member nations shall be protected to the same extent, and may be subject to the same restrictions, as the free expression of individuals, save that
  1. Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the commercial expression of legal persons in order to regulate false or misleading information, the promotion of products known to be seriously damaging to health and safety, and the exposure of individuals below the age of majority to the promotion of products and services that are restricted on the grounds of age
  2. Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons in order to prevent disproportionate influence on government by profit-making organisations and those acting under their direction, or on their behalf

Clarifies that this resolution does not prevent the regulation of campaign finance or other donations to political organisations.

Co-authored by Aclion
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:57 am, edited 21 times in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8260
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:47 pm

Pollution Inc makes a non-profit corporation, Citizens for a Cleaner Telemachia LLC. Pollution Inc gives CfCT LLC a trillion New Sterling. CfCT LLC uses those funds to lobby MPs and bribe Ministers. Your proposal says I can't do anything about that.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2811
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aclion » Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:39 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Pollution Inc makes a non-profit corporation, Citizens for a Cleaner Telemachia LLC. Pollution Inc gives CfCT LLC a trillion New Sterling. CfCT LLC uses those funds to lobby MPs and bribe Ministers. Your proposal says I can't do anything about that.

I think preventing for-profit corporations from creating and funding puppet companies in order to bypass reasonable restrictions on corporate lobbying would itself be a reasonable restriction. That is if you even accept that bribery is a form of political expression.
Last edited by Aclion on Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8260
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:35 pm

What you just said isn't what the proposal says.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2811
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aclion » Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:48 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:What you just said isn't what the proposal says.

b. Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons that are not non-profit organisations in order to prevent undue corporate influence on the political process.

What you described can be prevented under this.
Last edited by Aclion on Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8260
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:57 pm

Is giving someone money expression?

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:53 am

OOC: I don't think for profit corporations, political groups, and unincorporated not-for-profit organisations should be dealt with in the one proposal.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:01 am

First edit: I have added clauses to the preamble that were provided by Aclion, who will in likelihood end up as a co-author if this goes forward. I have also refined the definition of a non-commercial organisation to prevent companies acting through subsidiaries.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I don't think for profit corporations, political groups, and unincorporated not-for-profit organisations should be dealt with in the one proposal.

I'd be interested in your suggestions. The problem is that it's difficult to draw a clear distinction between them, especially since corporates can use subsidiaries and fund other organisations.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:04 am

Bump, just to stay on the front page.

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2811
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aclion » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:31 am

I would also change the title to Freedom of Expression for Collective Entities

I know that there are plenty of people who will vote no just in reaction to the word corporations.

Also typo(I think it's mine) clause 4 of the preamble says collective entity when it should say collective entities.
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:02 am

Edits made. The title has been shortened so that fits. I've removed any reference to the distinction between commercial and non-commercial organisations, believing it to be implicit in the idea of restrictions being intended to prevent undue commercial influence. Also, clarification added regarding campaign finance.

I'm held up at this point by a lack of progress with proposals on free expression for individuals.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:30 am

I will be basically inactive in the WA for the next 2 weeks or so. During this time, I give Aclion permission to take this draft forward if it's threatened by a rival draft that contradicts it and, if necessary, to submit it citing me as co-author.

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2811
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aclion » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:45 am

With UM's proposal looking sure to pass I'd like some more comments before this is submitted.
Last edited by Aclion on Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:24 pm

Aclion wrote:With UM's proposal looking sure to pass I'd like some more comments before this is submitted.

Yes indeed. Suddenly however, there's the latest attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms and there's Holocaust denial too, so we may have to wait. Popcorn?

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2056
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby United Massachusetts » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:07 pm

Uan aa Boa wrote:
Aclion wrote:With UM's proposal looking sure to pass I'd like some more comments before this is submitted.

Yes indeed. Suddenly however, there's the latest attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms and there's Holocaust denial too, so we may have to wait. Popcorn?

I'm not submitting my repeal any time soon/
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

WA Affairs Minister, The East Pacific
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

Fmr. President, Right to Life
Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
"Stat crux dum volvitur orbis"
"The Cross is steady while the world is turning"


User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2811
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aclion » Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:34 pm

United Massachusetts wrote:
Uan aa Boa wrote:Yes indeed. Suddenly however, there's the latest attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms and there's Holocaust denial too, so we may have to wait. Popcorn?

I'm not submitting my repeal any time soon/

But you're hogging all the malcontents D:
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:22 am

Bump. Planning to submit in the near future, so speak now or forever hold your peace.

User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 268
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:46 pm

Could you give a hypothetical situation for section b.) of the resolution. I wish to understand the intent.

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2811
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aclion » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:56 pm

Liberimery wrote:Could you give a hypothetical situation for section b.) of the resolution. I wish to understand the intent.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Pollution Inc makes a non-profit corporation, Citizens for a Cleaner Telemachia LLC. Pollution Inc gives CfCT LLC a trillion New Sterling.
Last edited by Aclion on Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19034
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:10 pm

Why does one of those lists use numbers and the other letters?
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:24 pm

Liberimery wrote:Could you give a hypothetical situation for section b.) of the resolution. I wish to understand the intent.

Sure. That section permits governments to restrict the political expression of the corporate sector, whether that takes the form of corporations lobbying politicians directly or appealing over their heads to public opinion. Oil producers and car manufacturers might want to dissuade the government from promoting hybrid and electrical cars by means of tax breaks and funding R&D. An industry struggling to compete with imports might want to persuade the government to introduce protective tariffs. The chemical industry might want to reduce environmental regulations. They'd most commonly do this by paying professional lobbyists to work on influencing politicians but they might also pay for political advertising to the public, whether online or on TV or by surrounding filling stations with bill boards warning of the threat to the motorist posed by the government's plans (to use one example).

The concern is that if this kind of corporate behaviour goes unchecked the most persuasive people will be the ones with the most money at their disposal, rather than the ones with the best argument. The transport industry coming together to promote new motorways will run a much more effective campaign than an association of people whose houses are slated for demolition. The intention of this proposal is to allow governments to level the playing field if they choose to.

Wallenburg wrote:Why does one of those lists use numbers and the other letters?

No particular reason. It can be changed.
Last edited by Uan aa Boa on Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:47 pm

You shouldn't be using the term "regional government" in your proposal. If you wish to refer to governments below the central government, you should use another term, such as "local government," "municipal government," "provincial government," or "subnational government."

Also, I hope that you'll include Oxford commas in the final draft that you submit.

Finally, I recommend that you amend this clause with the following change:

Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:01 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:You shouldn't be using the term "regional government" in your proposal. If you wish to refer to governments below the central government, you should use another term, such as "local government," "municipal government," "provincial government," or "subnational government."

Also, I hope that you'll include Oxford commas in the final draft that you submit.

Thanks. I'll probably go with "national or subnational government"

Finally, I recommend that you amend this clause with the following change:

Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.

I believe this would allow corporations to lobby through subsidiaries which are not themselves corporations. I agree with you that the other groups you list should not be subject to restrictions, and the stipulation that any restrictions should be reasonable and in order to prevent undue commercial influence is intended to protect them.
Last edited by Uan aa Boa on Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2811
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aclion » Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:02 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.

Hmm, how do you expect that will change the effect of the clause in practice, given that the allowance stipulates commercial influence ?
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:07 pm

Uan aa Boa wrote:
Finally, I recommend that you amend this clause with the following change:

Member nations may impose reasonable restrictions on the political expression of legal persons business corporations in order to prevent undue commercial influence on government.

The political expression of non-business corporations, such as environmental groups, civil liberties organizations, and religious associations, should not be restricted by member state governments.

I believe this would allow corporations to lobby through subsidiaries which are not themselves corporations. I agree with you that the other groups you list should not be subject to restrictions, and the stipulation that any restrictions should be reasonable and in order to prevent undue commercial influence is intended to protect them.

I fear that the term "commercial influence" could be construed in an overbroad manner. For example, a national government could prohibit the campaign advertisements of an environmental group -- e.g., tell your legislators to vote in favor of the carbon tax bill -- on the theory that such advertisements would have an undue and negative influence on national commerce.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads