[Draft] Freedom of the Press

[Bergnovinaia]

Freedom of Media Organizations
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press | Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description:The World Assembly,

Recognising the rights of media organizations to express and voice their opinion, unfettered by the government, on genuine affairs or issues;

Seeking to protect the above rights whilst keeping in mind of the need to preserve moral decency;

Hereby:

1. Fundamentally mandates that:
a) All media organisations in member states have the unalienable right to express and voice their opinion on all issues and affairs of the world without the fear of repression by the state;
b) Member states must not censor content made by the media organizations, any further than the exceptions specified in Section 2 and 3.

2. Allows member states to restrict media organizations from publishing, without seeking advice, information that has the potential to:
a) Compromise military and intelligence operations and methods;
b) Put at risk the safety of those involved in such operations;
c) Cause attacks that would damage the critical infrastructure and/or endanger lives in member states.

3. Mandates that member states may regulate the following content of media organizations only in the interests of moral decency:
a) Explicit or adult content (but not to completely outlaw it unless used criminally);
b) Genuinely libellous information about ordinary people or celebrities;
c) Content that promotes or causes:
i) Fraud and criminal activities;
ii) Racial and social hatred;
d) Content that tries to hypnotise the audience into doing certain actions;
e) Content that plagiarises original content or violates applicable copyright laws.

Co-authored by Bergnovinaia.

[Dee Beelle]

While I applaud the intentions of the delegation from Bergnovinaia, I believe this is an issue better addressed in a greater "freedom of speech" piece of legislation, covering all forms of expression including the press.

[Bergnovinaia]

While I applaud the intentions of the delegation from Bergnovinaia, I believe this is an issue better addressed in a greater "freedom of speech" piece of legislation, covering all forms of expression including the press.

No that wouldn't be good considering that's already covered in WA resolution #30. Freedom of the Press I believe is not.

[Carbandia]

This won't go well with the dictator nations. Why doesn't anyone think of the poor dictator nations?

[Koumpounophobia]

I have good connections to a lost nation called Vrall, and I myself am a leading a new nation called Koumpounaphobia. While I myself am not yet a WA member, I have applied to join. Allow me to say that, while it will be a stretch with the dictatorships, this is a very sound piece of legislature.

[Krioval]

Quite a bit of legislation proposed (and passed) by the WA tends to be dictator-unfriendly. I would suppose that is because most dictatorships aren't very internationalist in their focus.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Rokon]

I strongly approve of this act, but agree that the Dictatorship Nations won't except it very well. That said, I think it has potential of getting passed because I think there are more "reasonable nations" than there are Dictatorships.

[Koumpounophobia]

I strongly approve of this act, but agree that the Dictatorship Nations won't except it very well. That said, I think it has potential of getting passed because I think there are more "reasonable nations" than there are Dictatorships.

I'm a bit of a dictatorship, but I'd approve it in a heartbeat! =D

[Epicnopolis]

This won't go well with the dictator nations. Why doesn't anyone think of the poor dictator nations?

Because no body nobody lieks the dictator nations. DUH!

[Sionis Prioratus]

This won't go well with the dictator nations. Why doesn't anyone think of the poor dictator nations?

Because no body nobody lieks the dictator nations. DUH!

No?

[Meekinos]

Interesting. It claims to be for freedom of the press yet this proposal is actually supporting censorship is a backward manner.

[Koumpounophobia]

Interesting. It claims to be for freedom of the press yet this proposal is actually supporting censorship is a backward manner.

Not really. It's saying that as long as the press stays within its nation's legal reasonability, then they can say whatever the hell they want. Thus, Dictator nations might actually be FINE with this.
Thanks for pointing out what I should have seen last night!

[Buffett and Colbert]

Your proposal is far too short to be considered for such a broad topic.

[Bergnovinaia]

So are there any suggestions if it's too short?

[Meekinos]

Interesting. It claims to be for freedom of the press yet this proposal is actually supporting censorship is a backward manner.

Not really. It's saying that as long as the press stays within its nation's legal reasonability, then they can say whatever the hell they want. Thus, Dictator nations might actually be FINE with this.
Thanks for pointing out what I should have seen last night!

In other words, as long as the press doesn't publish anything that the government disagrees with. It's censorship.

[Bergnovinaia]

Interesting. It claims to be for freedom of the press yet this proposal is actually supporting censorship is a backward manner.

Not really. It's saying that as long as the press stays within its nation's legal reasonability, then they can say whatever the hell they want. Thus, Dictator nations might actually be FINE with this.
Thanks for pointing out what I should have seen last night!

In other words, as long as the press doesn't publish anything that the government disagrees with. It's censorship.

So thier should be strict limitations (such as the ones I have in the proposal) that limit what the government can censor? If you have any suuggestions to improve this issue in your mind please tell me.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The freedom of the press is not an ideological ban and therefore it needs to be affirmed before the World Assembly. However, some nations will want to prohibit genuinely illegal content such as the watershed against adult content, the ban on the promotion of racial hatred or banning libel against innocent people. Only very limited censorship is going to be allowed if free press is going to be a reality in the WA and since the WA seeks to improve the world, all member states will need to acknowledge that with this resolution they are going to need to accept criticism.

[Bergnovinaia]

The freedom of the press is not an ideological ban and therefore it needs to be affirmed before the World Assembly. However, some nations will want to prohibit genuinely illegal content such as the watershed against adult content, the ban on the promotion of racial hatred or banning libel against innocent people. Only very limited censorship is going to be allowed if free press is going to be a reality in the WA and since the WA seeks to improve the world, all member states will need to acknowledge that with this resolution they are going to need to accept criticism.

So you agree with the proposal as is?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It would require significant rewriting to proposal standards so that it is entirely readable, honoured ambassador. I have been thinking about this principle for a long time but I haven't got round to producing my own draft for it.

[Bergnovinaia]

It would require significant rewriting to proposal standards so that it is entirely readable, honoured ambassador. I have been thinking about this principle for a long time but I haven't got round to producing my own draft for it.

Would you like to help co author the final draft. (I wrote this proposal late last night.)

[Buffett and Colbert]

So are there any suggestions if it's too short?

No. I just can't be arsed.

[Meekinos]

So thier should be strict limitations (such as the ones I have in the proposal) that limit what the government can censor? If you have any suuggestions to improve this issue in your mind please tell me.

What you are suggesting in your proposal is that the government be allowed to censor opinions it deems unfavourable to it. That's what I got out of reading your draft.

We here are fairly liberal and wouldn't censor libellous speech. Let people say what they want and let it be resolved in the public view.

This proposal should guarantee a reasonable amount of freedom of speech as demonstrably justifiable in what is seen as a free and democratic society. This means allowing the publication of criticism of the government, which may include encouraging anti-government activity, such as protesting. Allow the release of information on the government unless it could be reasonably shown how it would threaten national security. Allow for explicit content to exist but permit governments to introduce a rating system and allow the use of parental control to determine if that content should be shown to someone under a certain age.

1) promote general hatred (not of other nations, religions, or political views)
Why offer protection to some forms of speech and not others? This could be used in a dictatorship to stifle, for example, democratic political views. It would allow the promotion of hatred toward that group.

2) promote criminal acts such as terrorism
And how is terrorism defined? It could be anything. It could be taken a number of ways. Terrorism could easily be defined in some nations as not sharing the same view as the government and being a dissident.

3) or contain explicit content
This should not be censored. If it is included, this should be an optionality, with solutions left up to the state.

Just some suggestions.

[Bergnovinaia]

Thanks for your suggestions. I took some of them but not others. For example; I changed the promotion of anti-govt. acts to if they are encouraging violent anti-government acts (i.e. a coup). I however didn't really change the promotion of acts of violence such as terrorism becuase terrorism isn't the point it's the promotion of said acts which can be defined by the government.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Let's begin, honoured ambassador, but it will take some time as we need the feedback from many members and again, this version is a loose draft but in a better form:

Freedom of the Broadcasters
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press | Proposed by: Bergnovinaia and Charlotte Ryberg

Description:The World Assembly,

Recognising:
b) The rights of broadcasters to express and report, unfettered by the government, on genuine affairs or issues;

Seeking to protect the above rights whilst keeping in mind of the need to preserve moral decency of the press;

Hereby:

1. Mandates fundamentally that all broadcasters and their journalists in member states have the unalienable right to express and voice their opinion on all issues and affairs of member states and the world without the fear of repression by the government of the member state.

2. Mandates further that member states are prohibited from disseminating information any further than the exceptions as specified in Section 3a and 3b.

3a. Specifies that member states may only restrict news editors from publishing, without seeking advice, information that has the potential to:
a) Compromise military and intelligence operations and methods;
b) Put at risk the safety of those involved in such operations;
c) Cause attacks that would damage the critical infrastructure and/or endanger lives in member states.

3b. Further specifies that member states may only regulate the following content to preserve moral decency:
a) Explicit or adult content, but not completely outlaw it unless used criminally;
b) Genuinely libellous information about ordinary people or celebrities;
c) Content that promotes anti-social behaviour (including criminal acts) and racial/social hatred;
d) Content that attempts to hypnotise a viewer into doing certain actions.

I'd like to thank (whoever gets to be a co-author)!

[Bergnovinaia]

Yout draft looks great. However, I would change the explicit contene to include an optionality clause for a nation to create a rating system as to not entirely ban said form of media.