[DEFEATED] Freedom of Expression for Organisations

[Separatist Peoples]

"So you believe that when one person speaks freely, its fine, but when two or more do so as an associated group, it isn't? You have strange standards."

"This draft has been a constant ordeal of objections that apply just as well to individual freedom of speech. Even looking at looking at what was submitted there's no justification for 2.b or 2.c to be specific to organisations, yet here we are, and the distinction is a tacit approval of the behaviour by individuals."

"Somehow I doubt that the honorable delegate of Dawn Kingdom takes specific issue with 2b or 2c and instead with the general premise."

[Aclion]

"This draft has been a constant ordeal of objections that apply just as well to individual freedom of speech. Even looking at looking at what was submitted there's no justification for 2.b or 2.c to be specific to organisations, yet here we are, and the distinction is a tacit approval of the behaviour by individuals."

"Somehow I doubt that the honorable delegate of Dawn Kingdom takes specific issue with 2b or 2c and instead with the general premise."

"I just mean that that thinking this resolution through hasn't been a trend, regardless of the reasons of the source of the objection"

[Uan aa Boa]

"This draft has been a constant ordeal of objections that apply just as well to individual freedom of speech. Even looking at looking at what was submitted there's no justification for 2.b or 2.c to be specific to organisations, yet here we are, and the distinction is a tacit approval of the behaviour by individuals."

Although I did originally ask UM to consider a hate speech/Holocaust denial clause in the resolution for individuals, I actually came to think that there is such a justification for 2b and 2c to be specific to organisations. There's a difference between an individual telling his friends Jews are scum in a private conversation and a political party holding rallies, distributing leaflets and appearing on TV to make the same point. The bar room Holocaust denier maybe does have a defence of personal ignorance, someone such as David Irvine who wants to publish on the subject less so. I've no desire to see private conversation regulated by the state.

[VW53Aland]

So, you think the amount of influence should determine if one may speak his mind or not?

[Liberimery]

"This draft has been a constant ordeal of objections that apply just as well to individual freedom of speech. Even looking at looking at what was submitted there's no justification for 2.b or 2.c to be specific to organisations, yet here we are, and the distinction is a tacit approval of the behaviour by individuals."

Although I did originally ask UM to consider a hate speech/Holocaust denial clause in the resolution for individuals, I actually came to think that there is such a justification for 2b and 2c to be specific to organisations. There's a difference between an individual telling his friends Jews are scum in a private conversation and a political party holding rallies, distributing leaflets and appearing on TV to make the same point. The bar room Holocaust denier maybe does have a defence of personal ignorance, someone such as David Irvine who wants to publish on the subject less so. I've no desire to see private conversation regulated by the state.

I suggest that if your nation has a problem with the organizational skills of anti-semites, the problem is not with their right to free speech, but with your ability to convince the public why this is a bad idea.

[Sterkistan]

"Overall, I am unsure as to the exact point of this legislation. It appears to be trying to do a wide range of things at once and fails to nail anything down. Is the point to provide organizations a wider freedom of speech as in the namesake? Or is it to silence a demographic of people in the name of 'free speech'."

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, vote AGAINST this resolution as We consider it a gross overreaching of government authority.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajasya

[Xanthal]

Xanthal has always believed that the treatment of organizations as persons for the purposes of law is ill-advised. Multiparty entities have characteristics and complications which set them quite apart from individuals, and while it is the opinion of the Federation that they should have rights and protections of their own, these can and should be addressed without simply coupling them to individual rights and protections with a few caveats and calling it a day. While such a reductionist approach may be more expedient in exigency than defining a distinct legal status, the unavoidable negative consequences of treating an organization as something that it candidly is not outweigh the simplicity of a single legal definition in the long term. If a country really wants to take the former route I don't necessarily think the WA should prevent them from doing so, but obversely requiring members to do so when you can protect any discrete set of rights you may wish without that particular conceit is, if I may speak in less elevated terms for a moment, really dumb.

[Aclion]

"This draft has been a constant ordeal of objections that apply just as well to individual freedom of speech. Even looking at looking at what was submitted there's no justification for 2.b or 2.c to be specific to organisations, yet here we are, and the distinction is a tacit approval of the behaviour by individuals."

Although I did originally ask UM to consider a hate speech/Holocaust denial clause in the resolution for individuals, I actually came to think that there is such a justification for 2b and 2c to be specific to organisations. There's a difference between an individual telling his friends Jews are scum in a private conversation and a political party holding rallies, distributing leaflets and appearing on TV to make the same point. The bar room Holocaust denier maybe does have a defence of personal ignorance, someone such as David Irvine who wants to publish on the subject less so. I've no desire to see private conversation regulated by the state.

That sound more like a distinction between public and private speech then individual or organization.

[VW53Aland]

That sound more like a distinction between public and private speech then individual or organization.

I agree.

I am still in favour of replacing the original resolution. I think this would be possible and better suited. For instance, it has been done recently regarding the legislation regarding crime and punishment. At a quick glance, I think it would be sufficient to change the word "individuals" in section 3 of the original resolution #436, into "legal entities".
If necessary, one could add a line declaring that a legal entity can be an individual or any organised assembly of individuals (like for example, but not limiting to, a corporation, an association or a foundation).

[Uan aa Boa]

That sound more like a distinction between public and private speech then individual or organization.

I am still in favour of replacing the original resolution. I think this would be possible and better suited. For instance, it has been done recently regarding the legislation regarding crime and punishment. At a quick glance, I think it would be sufficient to change the word "individuals" in section 3 of the original resolution #436, into "legal entities".
If necessary, one could add a line declaring that a legal entity can be an individual or any organised assembly of individuals (like for example, but not limiting to, a corporation, an association or a foundation).

You can go ahead and draft such a repeal if you want, but the replacement you have in mind would simply reinstate the problems that led to the repeal of the original free expression resolution resolution GA #30. If a TV station starting showing tobacco adverts during the cartoons that were based on blatantly false claims and designed to appeal to children then there would be nothing to stop that.

Additionally, if you submitted a resolution that was the one written by United Massachusetts with minor edits you'd need their permission to avoid being guilty of plagiarism. That might well not be forthcoming if they didn't like your proposed changes or were unimpressed with you having repealed their resolution.

That sound more like a distinction between public and private speech then individual or organization.

Perhaps, it depends how you'd propose to define public and private. Also, I obviously had to work with UM's resolution as it is rather than as I'd like it to be.

[Thyerata]

We object to the notion of corporate personhood. It has no foundation in public international law. Consequently, since corporations have no legal personality, they cannot benefit from the right of freedom of expression.

Opposed

[Separatist Peoples]

We object to the notion of corporate personhood. It has no foundation in public international law. Consequently, since corporations have no legal personality, they cannot benefit from the right of freedom of expression.

Opposed

"It doesn't need a foundation preceeding statutes. Statutes create the foundation. That is how legislation works. If you don't recognize corporate personhood, I don't see how your government may be a party to a lawsuit, as well."

[Thyerata]

We object to the notion of corporate personhood. It has no foundation in public international law. Consequently, since corporations have no legal personality, they cannot benefit from the right of freedom of expression.

Opposed

"It doesn't need a foundation preceeding statutes. Statutes create the foundation. That is how legislation works. If you don't recognize corporate personhood, I don't see how your government may be a party to a lawsuit, as well."

Government can be party to a lawsuit as a manifestation of the State, can it not? I understood that this was a basic principle of the State's existence

[VW53Aland]

We object to the notion of corporate personhood.

You mean, you object to calling a corporation a legal entity?

[Imperium Anglorum]

The proposal doesn't create corporate personhood. It creates legal personhood: "Defines a legal person to be an entity other than an individual that has rights or obligations in law". If you in fact disagree with the proposal for the reason that it creates the ability for an entity other than an individual to have rights in law... then the state, which is an entity other than an individual that can file suit, and therefore, has rights in law, falls into that definition.

[Thyerata]

The proposal doesn't create corporate personhood. It creates legal personhood: "Defines a legal person to be an entity other than an individual that has rights or obligations in law". If you in fact disagree with the proposal for the reason that it creates the ability for an entity other than an individual to have rights in law... then the state, which is an entity other than an individual that can file suit, and therefore, has rights in law, falls into that definition.

We object to the grant of legal personhood to a corporation. We accept that states have legal personhood in their relations with other States and, sometimes, in domestic litigation (albeit that on the domestic scene the Government is generally a manifetation of the State when it is being sued)

[Separatist Peoples]

"It doesn't need a foundation preceeding statutes. Statutes create the foundation. That is how legislation works. If you don't recognize corporate personhood, I don't see how your government may be a party to a lawsuit, as well."

Government can be party to a lawsuit as a manifestation of the State, can it not? I understood that this was a basic principle of the State's existence

"Ah, so you just permit corporations to faff around, impossible to sue. Gotchya."

[Marshite Ponies]

Ambassador Twilight Sparkle speaks, letting their government's position be known. "The Republic has voted Neigh on this proposal. While the intent behind it, coupled with the whimsies of its enforcement clauses, are appreciated, it tackles too broad a subject and has too many possible means of abuse while also heightening the possibility of political corruption. Unintended as though they may be, we believe the risks are simply too great. We appreciate the work that Uan aa Boa has put into their proposal and wish them future success in their World Assembly endeavours. Have a harmonious day."

[VW53Aland]

You can go ahead and draft such a repeal if you want, but the replacement you have in mind would simply reinstate the problems that led to the repeal of the original free expression resolution resolution GA #30.

Ah, I didn't know GA resolution #436 was already a modification to an earlier resolution. Doesn't matter though. #436 is the current resolution and it can be changed like it has been before, apparently.

If a TV station starting showing tobacco adverts during the cartoons that were based on blatantly false claims and designed to appeal to children then there would be nothing to stop that.

Why not? Because, this example has nothing to do with free speech. A TV station has the right to show tobacco adverts during cartoons, unless a government sets boundaries to this (for instance by allowing tobacco adverts only after 8PM) because they value the health of their people, particularly that of children. Free speech is not a synonym for advertisement. Governments can set limits as they see fit.

Additionally, if you submitted a resolution that was the one written by United Massachusetts with minor edits you'd need their permission to avoid being guilty of plagiarism.

No, I don't see it that way. I would just change one word and if the majority of the WA votes For this small correction, then the legislation passes. United Massachusetts has near to nothing to do with that, except that if they are a WA-member, they can vote too. For all I care, they can have the credit for this correction - I don't need it.

I just think it is weird and confusing that we would create one law for when one person says something and then create a complete, different, other law for when two or more people say the same thing. It is like placing dual speed limit signs along every road, with different limits - one for when there's only a driver in the car and one for when he has passengers on board as well. It is confusing and illogic.

[VW53Aland]

We object to the grant of legal personhood to a corporation.

But they are a legal entity. That is not what is at stake here and it certainly is not what is granted by this legislation.

You can object to that, but it is just the way it is. You can object to grass being green, or the sky being blue, but that's just the way it is.

[Thyerata]

Government can be party to a lawsuit as a manifestation of the State, can it not? I understood that this was a basic principle of the State's existence

"Ah, so you just permit corporations to faff around, impossible to sue. Gotchya."

*Matthew grumbles* if you're going to be pedantic ambassador...

We accept that corporations can enter into contracts with each other, with other legal persons such as Government and with natural persons and be sued thereby in the laws of contract and tort. We also accept the doctrine of corporate social responsibility. However, we strenuously object to the notion that corporations have human rights (such as the right to freedom of speech) in the same way that a natural person does.

[VW53Aland]

However, we strenuously object to the notion that corporations have human rights (such as the right to freedom of speech) in the same way that a natural person does.

So, you state that you, as a natural person should have the right to state, what you just stated here, but as spokesperson for your government (i.e. an organisation other that a single natural person) should not have the right to do so.

So, by your objection, you should not have to right to object to this.

[Xanthal]

If the argument in favor of organizational personhood is that only persons have legal standing to be a plaintiff or a defendant in court, one wonders why it is impossible to simply address the issue by extending legal standing to organizations rather than skirt it by defining them as persons. That is a false dilemma. Given the ease with which another term could be used, why invite the ambiguity "person" would impose upon every other piece of national and international law which uses it? The fact that this approach was chosen in the first place suggests either a serious failure of imagination or that someone was trying to pull a fast one; in either case it's worth going back to the drafting board to change.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the argument in favor of organizational personhood is that only persons have legal standing to be a plaintiff or a defendant in court, one wonders why it is impossible to simply address the issue by extending legal standing to organizations rather than skirt it by defining them as persons. That is a false dilemma. Given the ease with which another term could be used, why invite the ambiguity "person" would impose upon every other piece of national and international law which uses it? The fact that this approach was chosen in the first place suggests either a serious failure of imagination or that someone was trying to pull a fast one; in either case it's worth going back to the drafting board to change.

"Associations, including corporations, are made up of people. People do not lose their right to speech merely because they exercise their right to associate. Extending similar rights to organizations, including business entities, and curtailing those rights only when necessary, is the only way to avoid infringing on the rights of individuals."