Advertisement
by Kaesekartoffeln » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:54 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:41 am
Kaesekartoffeln wrote:In Section 3c, I believe the phrase "promotes or causes" is too broad and could be abused. That concern aside, I support this resolution.
Anarchifia wrote:Even though I am against coporations "Destroying" My nation, I beilieve they have every right to report what they want instead of censoring what the goverment would say was "Lowering moral". However, The fact that The republic of anarchifia dissaproves of news reporters I suport your values and idealology.
by Kaesekartoffeln » Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:38 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Kaesekartoffeln wrote:In Section 3c, I believe the phrase "promotes or causes" is too broad and could be abused. That concern aside, I support this resolution.
If I narrowed it down to "incite" would this help, honoured ambassador? Do keep in mind that I am trying to keep the text in plain English although a bit of legalese is tolerated.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:43 am
by New Rockport » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:54 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Since I cannot find a reliable pivotal place to edit and display my current version of the draft I am forced to post it here: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 their opinion on genuine issues and affairs of the world without fear of repression;
• Seeking to protect the above rights while keeping in mind of the need to protect moral decency;
Hereby,
1. Mandates that:
a) All media organisations in member states have the unalienable right to express their opinion on genuine issues and affairs of the world without fear of repression;
b) Member states must not censor content created by the media organizations any further than the exceptions given in Section 2 and 3.
Charlotte Ryberg wrote: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 the safety of those involved in such operations at risk;
c) Cause attacks that would damage the critical infrastructure and/or endanger lives.
d) Reveal personal information or invade the privacy of an individual without consent.
3. Provides for member states to regulate the following types of content published by media organizations in the interests of moral decency:
a) Explicit, obscene or adult content (but not to ban them unless it is used unlawfully);
b) Genuinely libellous information about individuals;
c) Content which incites fraud, criminal activities, racial or social hatred;
d) Content which tries to hypnotise the audience into doing certain actions;
e) Content which plagiarises original content or violates applicable copyright laws.
Co-authored by Bergnovinaia.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:46 am
Description: A resolution to do something.
Details: Detailed description of the resolution.
(example)
by Yakana » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:14 am
a) Explicit, obscene or adult content (but not to ban them unless it is used unlawfully);
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:56 am
Yakana wrote:This seems to take away the states right on media. We're being forced by another parts who may not share our same beliefs on social morality and forced to allow that which may be illegal in our nation.a) Explicit, obscene or adult content (but not to ban them unless it is used unlawfully);
This bans Explicit, obscene or adult content ( Which is not defined. Is this cussing? Pornography? Violence? Or left up the member state? ) but does not allow you to punish those who violated it, unless it violates a law when in this case it already does since this resolution does not actually say the state has the choice to ban media from doing the following. It states they can't ban them any further, but not any less either. This is placing conditions, and saying that ALL need to be enforced even when some are not defined.
3.a. could also be defined by said government to be anything anti-government as adult content thus revoking the license of said news agency. It also does not ban posting of information regarding non-military state secrets and other classified information.
A states rights are severely violated with this. Restrictions on 'Freedom of Speech' of speech should be allowed based on ones National Laws. When a government issues a law that it's leader shall not be shown on television or printed press, this gives them permission to directly violate that law.
by New Rockport » Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:48 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:55 am
by Sennianus » Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:29 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:47 am
by New Rockport » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:51 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Secondly, to define the term "press" as broadcasters or media organisations that cover current affairs or similar.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:59 pm
by New Rockport » Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:44 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:...the idea of a definition for "press" as previously suggested is now out.
Charlotte Ryberg wrote: However the areas of effect may be leaning towards to the furtherment of democracy, effect mild.
by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:09 am
by New Rockport » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:35 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:(OOC: Just curious... do you have an explanation for why you think that freedom of press and/or broadcasters isn't already included in Freedom of Expression?)
New Rockport wrote:I think I might have found a way to make this so that it doesn't overlap Resolution 30. Resolution 30 recognizes the right of individuals to free expression, but does not mention a right of organizations to free expression. Therefore, a resolution that recognizes the press freedom of organizations would appear to be legal because it would not duplicate Resolution 30.
by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:42 am
New Rockport wrote:I think I might have found a way to make this so that it doesn't overlap Resolution 30. Resolution 30 recognizes the right of individuals to free expression, but does not mention a right of organizations to free expression. Therefore, a resolution that recognizes the press freedom of organizations would appear to be legal because it would not duplicate Resolution 30.
by New Rockport » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:56 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:It actually doesn't use the word 'individual'...
Resolution 30 wrote:Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I think we would be splitting hairs to assume that Freedom of Expression only covers private citizens.
by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:03 am
New Rockport wrote:You may be right, but a government that is hostile toward the freedom of expression might also split hairs in interpreting the right as narrowly as possible. If the distinction between individuals and organizations is a loophole that such a government could use, then it needs to be closed. If not, then this proposal should not be introduced.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:12 am
by New Rockport » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:16 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Inds Fandamotophoide, The Overmind
Advertisement