by Bergnovinaia » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:30 pm
by Dee Beelle » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:48 pm
by Bergnovinaia » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:50 pm
Dee Beelle wrote: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.
by Carbandia » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:52 pm
by Koumpounophobia » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:26 pm
by Krioval » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:02 pm
by Rokon » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:37 pm
by Koumpounophobia » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:46 pm
Rokon wrote: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.
by Epicnopolis » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:50 pm
Carbandia wrote:This won't go well with the dictator nations. Why doesn't anyone think of the poor dictator nations?
by Sionis Prioratus » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:52 pm
Epicnopolis wrote:Carbandia wrote: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!
by Meekinos » Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:41 am
by Koumpounophobia » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:36 am
Meekinos wrote:Interesting. It claims to be for freedom of the press yet this proposal is actually supporting censorship is a backward manner.
by Buffett and Colbert » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:41 am
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:15 am
by Meekinos » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:16 am
Koumpounophobia wrote:Meekinos wrote: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!
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:23 am
Meekinos wrote:Koumpounophobia wrote:Meekinos wrote: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.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:37 am
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:39 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote: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.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:56 am
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:58 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote: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.
by Buffett and Colbert » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:19 am
Bergnovinaia wrote:So are there any suggestions if it's too short?
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Meekinos » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:25 am
Bergnovinaia wrote: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.
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:37 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:37 am
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:41 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement