[Draft] Freedom of the Press

[Kaesekartoffeln]

In Section 3c, I believe the phrase "promotes or causes" is too broad and could be abused. That concern aside, I support this resolution.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

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.

It is true that some news companies are corporations but some are non-profit and are reliable. In Charlotte Ryberg we have a very popular news channel simply called "The News Channel" and they are run privately by hobbyists who gather raw information from the agencies then produce their own reports and commentaries. They are very unbiased but also cheerful and friendly.

[Kaesekartoffeln]

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.

"Incite" would work well, honored ambassador. Thank you for addressing our concern.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Great, honoured ambassador to Kaesekartoffeln!

The latest version which is found here has section 3c revised to:

c) Content which incites fraud, criminal activities, racial or social hatred.

[New Rockport]

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.

I would suggest changing created to published in Section 1 (b). This would protect organizations that publish work created by others, and not just those that publish their own work.

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.

I recommend striking the phrase about individuals from Section 3 (b). That way, states could prohibit libel against groups and not just individuals.

Regarding Section 3 (c), what about content that does not incite fraud, but is itself fraudulent? How about adding the following:

f) Content which constitutes fraud or misrepresentation

In Section 3 (e), I would suggest changing copyright to intellectual property, as there are other forms of intellectual property that should be protected.

-Raj Patel, Esq., Chief Counsel to the Ambassador

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Thanks for the suggestions, honoured ambassador to New Rockport. Here is a updated revision:

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 allowing member states 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 published by the media organizations any further than the exceptions given in Section 2 and 3. These exemptions must not be abused in an effort to control the freedom of the press among law-abiding media organisations.

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:
a) Explicit and offensive pornographic materials (but not to ban them unless it is used unlawfully);
b) Genuinely libellous information or information that constitutes fraud or misrepresentation;
c) Content which incites 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 laws that protect intellectual property.

Co-authored by Bergnovinaia.

---

Hoping to simplify the English as far as possible whilst retaining the quality, I am thinking about adding a short summary at the top because the new formatting tags allows me to use additional headings such as Detail or Notes. Something like:

Description: A resolution to do something.

Details: Detailed description of the resolution.
(example)

[Yakana]

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.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

I have decided to further tweak section 3a to read:

3a. Provides for member states to regulate the following types of content published by media organizations in the interests of moral decency: Explicit and offensive pornographic materials (but not to ban them unless it is used unlawfully).

Free press is of course a part of a good country and since the WA is trying to improve the world (of member states) free press will be needed to keep everyone hooked into media and world culture, whatever what ideology the member state is following.

And since this is free press the restrictions are the absolute maximum. All member states have to comply with section 1 but if they loosen up their grip on 2 and 3 then they are exceeding the requirements of the resolution.

However, there are small concerns about this draft being an ideological ban and I may need clarification on whether it is or not. As far as I can see this is a resolution about free press.

[New Rockport]

I thank my esteemed colleagues from Charlotte Ryberg and Bergnovinaia for accepting Mr. Patel's recommendations. This proposal has the full support of the Federal Republic of New Rockport.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Federal Republic of New Rockport
Delegate to the World Assembly, Region of Albion

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Section 1b has been tweaked to "Mandates that member states must not censor content published by the media organizations any further than the exceptions given in Section 2 and 3. These exemptions must not be abused in an effort to control the freedom of the press among law-abiding media organisations." The reason is that since this resolution promotes free press then member states should allow the law-abiding press to report freely.
Two tweaks have been suggest for peer consideration: first, allowing member states to ban broadcasters in repeat violation of the moral decency exemptions. Secondly, to define the term "press" as broadcasters or media organisations that cover current affairs or similar. (too narrow)

[Sennianus]

Although its intent is good, this proposal restricts freedom press and stimulates censorship.

This is mainly due to the third paragraph, where more nuances are needed as much content could still be censored under those regulations. It needs work, and perhaps a better definition of what "moral decency" constitutes (if this issue is essential to you). However, "moral decency" is relative. For instance, where does one draw the line between pornography and "erotic art" (perhaps magazines sin the nature of Playboy could be censored or forbidden this way), or how to define "satire" as opposed to "slander", etcetera.

The first and second paragraph are very good, on the other hand. These are valid considerations made crystal clear (in my opinion).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Moral decency does have a rather ambiguous meaning in the NS world, honoured ambassador. To address this, let's make it straightforward and simply state that "section 3 provides for member states to regulate the following types of content published by media organizations".

Do feel free to comment if you have any more feedback, everyone.

[New Rockport]

Secondly, to define the term "press" as broadcasters or media organisations that cover current affairs or similar.

That would be a dealbreaker as far as my government and I are concerned. Publishers of literary, artistic, historical, scientific, religious, commercial, educational, and other content are no less deserving of protection than are the news media. To discriminate against them in such a manner would be unconscionable. If such a change is made, I will devote my full efforts to the defeat (and if necessary the repeal) of this resolution.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Federal Republic of New Rockport
Delegate to the World Assembly, Region of Albion

OOC: Book publishing is the largest industry of New Rockport and the third largest industry of its overseas territory, San Petulina. Therefore, Ms. Rossi and the rest of the government of New Rockport are understandably quite concerned about this matter.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Freedom of the Press area of effect option could also be interpreted as the freedom of publishing as well, so the idea of a definition for "press" as previously suggested is now out. However the areas of effect may be leaning towards to the furtherment of democracy, effect mild.

At the moment I am checking compatibility with GA #27, which also covers freedom of speech (in this case, assembly).

[New Rockport]

...the idea of a definition for "press" as previously suggested is now out.

Thank you.

However the areas of effect may be leaning towards to the furtherment of democracy, effect mild.

That would be fine, as long as "media organizations" aren't defined narrowly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(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]

(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?)

OOC: Does this (from upthread) make any sense?

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.

If not, then this proposal probably would be a duplication of Resolution 30. It probably would be a good idea to get a ruling from the moderators before submitting it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

(OOC: The thing is, Freedom of Expression makes no distinction between private individuals and public groups of individuals. It actually doesn't use the word 'individual', it uses 'all people', when defining the right. It also covers 'all available media'. I think we would be splitting hairs to assume that Freedom of Expression only covers private citizens.)

[New Rockport]

It actually doesn't use the word 'individual'...

Actually, it does:

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction

I think we would be splitting hairs to assume that Freedom of Expression only covers private citizens.

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.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

(OOC: There's no such thing as a resolution that cannot be abused. I can already spot a possible abuse-prone in the latest draft of this resolution. In my opinion, Freedom of Expression covers all people, whether they're independent individuals or members of news corporations. We're not talking about commercial speech, here. We're talking about journalists reporting the news. Last I checked, journalists were people, too.)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

If it is not compatible with #30 or #27, I will not submit it, Dr. Castro. However, this would leave that Area of Effect, unused since its introduction, unused.

[New Rockport]

OOC: I requested a ruling in the debatable proposals thread.