[PASSED] Repeal: "Freedom of the Press"

[Hulldom]

RLM: "While reviewing the statute books with my archivist, Ms. Faygo, I found that one of my, sadly forgotten, predecessors had mistakenly refused to weigh in on the debate here. I immediately saw a few flaws in it and wrote this draft missive for you all here."

OOC: A replacement will be forthcoming before I submit, don't worry.

Target: GAR#155: Freedom of the Press

The General Assembly,

Cognizant of the myriad benefits of a free and open press for the causes of accountability justice, and good governance,

Believing, however, that freedom of the press ought to be faced with minimal constraints,

Aware that the previous resolution on the subject, [resolution=GAR#155]Freedom of the Press[/resolution] was well intentioned but contains several flaws that render it a toothless defense of the freedom of the press,

Finds as follows:

1. The proviso in clause 2 that “international news media organisations” may operate within a nation’s borders only “when given explicit permission to do so” impedes press reporting by allowing other nations to restrict the same. Additionally, this proviso, while countered with an encouragement in clause 3, is a mandate and thus restricts the reporting of “international news media organisations”, impeding the freedom of the press as a result.
   
2. In clause 4, the inclusion of “and” in the clause that citizens may not be punished for accessing news media that operates “both within and outside the nation's borders”, means that nations may punish citizens for accessing media originating solely within a nation’s borders or for accessing media originating from another nation such as dissident media. Thus, the resolution again undermines the goal of a free press by unintentionally restricting that media which citizens may absolutely lawfully access.
   
3. The phrase “genuine threat to the security of the nation” in clause 5 is unable to be judged and thus open to abuse because there is no adjudicative authority, and thus claims to censor information on the basis of national security grounds can be abused.
   
4. Additionally in clause 5, the second sentence’s overriding deference to “national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct” also impedes freedom of the press as national or international media may be restricted from reporting on topics that national media regulators may find obscene or which a nation may otherwise find objectionable.

Therefore let [resolution=GAR#155]GAR#155: “Freedom of the Press”[/resolution] be repealed.

[Comfed]

Frankly, the issue with clause 2 alone is sufficient to warrant a repeal.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

OOC: I didn't know that 'proviso' was a word until I looked it up just now.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Support.'

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: How is genuine not clear enough? It seems pretty obvious to me that it has to, in fact, be bona fide.

[Hulldom]

OOC: How is genuine not clear enough? It seems pretty obvious to me that it has to, in fact, be bona fide.

There’s no overarching authority that might be able to review the claim, nor is there a mechanism to punish those not making genuine claims. In the absence of such a moderating authority, it seems straightforward to go to the claim that there’s no way to moderate such.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: How is genuine not clear enough? It seems pretty obvious to me that it has to, in fact, be bona fide.

There’s no overarching authority that might be able to review the claim, nor is there a mechanism to punish those not making genuine claims. In the absence of such a moderating authority, it seems straightforward to go to the claim that there’s no way to moderate such.

I would make this warrant chain explicit.

[Wallenburg]

At a glance, I'd say I support this.

[Hulldom]

There’s no overarching authority that might be able to review the claim, nor is there a mechanism to punish those not making genuine claims. In the absence of such a moderating authority, it seems straightforward to go to the claim that there’s no way to moderate such.

I would make this warrant chain explicit.

Re-wrote clause 3 in a way that I hope makes things more clear.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: A replacement is not needed. Full support for this repeal if it is standalone.

[Hulldom]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: A replacement is not needed. Full support for this repeal if it is standalone.

“A flawed piece of law is a flawed piece of law.

That being said, we would rather not give every tinpot dictator the opportunity, or at least much of one, to assume that the World Assembly condones their thuggish impositions on the ears and minds of their citizenry.

On the contrary, we intend to replace this and replace this quickly. May tyrants fall as a result.”

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: A replacement is not needed. Full support for this repeal if it is standalone.

“A flawed piece of law is a flawed piece of law.

That being said, we would rather not give every tinpot dictator the opportunity, or at least much of one, to assume that the World Assembly condones their thuggish impositions on the ears and minds of their citizenry.

On the contrary, we intend to replace this and replace this quickly. May tyrants fall as a result.”

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: That is a shame. In any case, we will happily vote in favour of this repeal, and do everything in our power to stop any potential replacement. We don't need the international news and their nosy journalists misrepresenting our great nation with their biased reporting. No, we aren't doing slavery, the contracts were definitely negotiated in good faith, and maybe with a gun. Ugh, liberals.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: How is genuine not clear enough? It seems pretty obvious to me that it has to, in fact, be bona fide.

Ooc: That's a lot of faith you have in a nation's credibility with regard to what they think is a security threat.

[Hannasea]

"Yeah, fuck freedom."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD,
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Maowi]

"I imagine the issue identified with clause two of the target stems from its failure to identify the actor responsible for providing "explicit permission". If that is the case, instead of inadvertently giving veto power to other nations as this draft argues, surely it does the opposite and allows for an international media organisation's operations within a member nation to be approved by other nations? After all, the resolution just states that "explicit permission" is required from someone, not that implicit permission is required from everyone."

[Imperium Anglorum]

What nation would take that interpretation when they could take the other interpretation?

[Fachumonn]

OOC: Support.

-stuff cut out
Aware that the previous resolution on the subject, [resolution=GAR#155]Freedom of the Press[/resolution] was well-intentioned but contains several flaws that render it a toothless defense of the freedom of the press,
-stuff cut out
[*]In clause 4, the inclusion of “and” in the statement inthe clause that citizens may not be punished for accessing news media that operates “both within and outside the nation's borders”, meaning that citizens may be punished for accessing media originating solely within a nation’s borders or for accessing media originating from another nation such as dissident media. Thus, the resolution again undermines the goal of a free press by unintentionally restricting that media which citizens may absolutely lawfully access.

[Maowi]

What nation would take that interpretation when they could take the other interpretation?

I don't really understand where the basis for the other interpretation is - maybe I'm being too literal? But I'm struggling to see how "organisations can only operate from within a nation's borders [...] when given explicit permission to do so" implies that a nation giving permission can have that permission overridden by another.

Edit: whoops, cleared this up with Hulldom and it turns out I misunderstood the point Hull was making in the repeal.

[Molfire Islands]

I think it should depend on what the country believes in

[Bananaistan]

"A replacement which forces nations to waive their normal entry/visa requirements for people claiming to be journalists has no chance of passing.

"The rest is petty nitpicking. Opposed."

[Makko Oko]

"A replacement which forces nations to waive their normal entry/visa requirements for people claiming to be journalists has no chance of passing.

"The rest is petty nitpicking. Opposed."

"We share Ambassador Bananaistan's concerns regarding the proposed replacement and completely oppose a complete waiving of our immigration procedures" - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Even though I’m still trying to comprehend the wording of the argument made against the target’s clause 4, I see no other problems and thus support this repeal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Martzbrieg]

I do agree with you in regards to the repeal of this bill. However, I do want to ask what provisions will be in a potential replacement resolution. Also, as I am new to this community, is there any possibility of amending the resolution so as to remove the offending text?

[Tinhampton]

Also, as I am new to this community, is there any possibility of amending the resolution so as to remove the offending text?

no

[Wallenburg]

I do agree with you in regards to the repeal of this bill. However, I do want to ask what provisions will be in a potential replacement resolution. Also, as I am new to this community, is there any possibility of amending the resolution so as to remove the offending text?

Afraid not, amendments are neither permitted under the GA ruleset nor supported by how the game records resolutions.

[Hulldom]

Bump