[PASSED] Freedom of the Press

by **Broughdom** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:26 pm

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

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

Description: Nations of the World Assembly,

Believing that all citizens of World Assembly member nations should have the opportunity to expand their knowledge and be educated about affairs in their own nation along with international affairs;

Defining a media technology to be any technology used for mass communication of information, including but not limited to the Internet, television, newspapers, and radio;

Further defining news media to be those elements of the mass media that focus on delivering information on current events to the general public;

Clarifying that an international news media organisation is one which has a permanent, primary base in any World Assembly nation other than the one being referenced;

Calls upon all World Assembly member nations to begin following the guidelines below to ensure a fair and free press;

Section I - Reporting

Nations will allow national news media organisations to utilise all available media technologies to report news from and to areas inside their own borders, as well as from any other World Assembly nation.
International news media organisations can only operate from within a nation's borders (ie. utilising available media technologies to report news) when given explicit permission to do so, and are subject to the same laws which apply to national news media organisations.
Nations are encouraged to allow reporters from international news media organisations which do not operate from within their borders entry to the nation to report news back to their own nation.

Section II - Accessibility & Censorship

Citizens will not be banned from accessing any news sources from news media organisations operating both within and outside the nation's borders.
Reports from news media organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation. Otherwise they are free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct.

Section III - Additional

Clarifies that nations are otherwise free to control the availability of all media technologies as they see fit, except where other legislation in this field affects this right.

The above is the final draft of this resolution, proposed on 6th June 2011. Below you can find all previous drafts and a copy of what this first post said initially when the thread was opened.

Draft 5 - Posted 3rd May

Draft 4 - Posted 29th April

Draft 3 - Posted 27th April

Draft 2 - Posted 17th April

Draft 1 - Posted 17th April

Hi all. Most of your are probably all aware of me now since my "Unified News Agency" proposal gained such infamy after reaching quorum. For those that don't, it's here:

Anyway, I'd like to start again. It's clear to me now that there were far too many problems with the above, so I'd like to start by bouncing a few ideas around about a possible proposal to do with freedom of the press before I get on with writing and bringing a first draft in here.

I think the main thing I'm trying to accomplish with a proposal like this is to essentially force WA nations to allow international press inside their borders and to broadcast international news to their people. It's the idea that all citizens have a right to hear about international news as well as news from their own country, and to be educated about world affairs. One could view it as an extension of resolution 30, "Freedom of Expression", in that at the moment we have the idea that people have a right to say what they want in their own nation, but people should also be allowed to have their views heard in other nations and equally hear the views of citizens in other nations.

So I'd like to ask for some help. What are the general thoughts on a proposal like this? Should it be relatively specific or more open? Are there any extra things that could be included? Apart from saying, "press should be allowed inside all borders and broadcasts should include international news" for example, what else could be done?

I appreciate any thoughts on the matter.
Thanks.

As an aside, I've always wondered why no resolution has ever been passed under the gambling category. I assume it's a bit too specific of a category to get a resolution out of it, but why is it still there? Can anyone shed any light on that?

by **Grays Harbor** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:49 pm

Our primary objection is similar to our objection to the other one. We do not find the idea of a mandatory press to be at all appealing. What safeguards would there be to prevent them from bias? Blatant anti-government stories? Manipulation? We do support the idea of a free and independent press, but do not believe that mandating what and who it shall be is the way to go. We see far more potential for abuse than for good.

by **Bears Armed** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:27 pm

If you still want a WA News Agency producing material then you actually need to give it its own [commercially &/or WA-funded] ways of disseminating that material instead of explicitly or even implicitly requiring that member nations' governments force their existing media to carry it... Either that or simply make it an agency offering material to the local media, with no compulsion on their part to take any of it...

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:30 pm

"Or better yet you can drop the idea entirely and work on something that actually is an international issue. I can think of at least five resolutions in need of a repeal." Faliksa said nodding.

by **The Ainocran Embassy** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:44 pm

does anyone else enjoy the irony of a forced press being called a free press?

by **Darenjo** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:35 pm

You know, I would've thought freedom of the press would be covered by Freedom of Expression and CoCR.

by **Mousebumples** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:02 pm

Broughdom wrote:Hi all. Most of your are probably all aware of me now since my "Unified News Agency" proposal gained such infamy after reaching quorum. For those that don't, it's here:
Unified News Agency
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Free Press

Proposed by: Broughdom

Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

Observing that each specific nation has its own views on the mass media;

Taking into account the fact that most nations have their own news agencies and broadcasting services which are allowed different levels of freedom in reporting daily news from inside and outside their borders;

Believing that all citizens of World Assembly member nations have a right to the truth, and utilize that right to be educated about affairs in their own nation along with world affairs;

Noting with regret that in some nations press is so restricted that citizens are blinded by government created news and never find out what is really going on in their nation, or outside their borders;

Alarmed that in other nations press is so free that citizens do not know what is true and what is false due to the rights of the press to print whatever they want;

Guided by the system of some news media organisations from nations which have world news that is free to report anything yet regulated to provide only the truth;

The World Assembly hereby establishes a Unified News Agency & Broadcasting Service (UNABS) which is free to report news from and to all World Assembly nations, no matter what each nation’s specific views on free press are, following the guidelines below:

1) All World Assembly nations will allow the UNABS access inside their borders and the freedom to report news from anywhere, at the discretion of the reporters and each nation’s government (clause 2).

2) Nations reserve the right to restrict the UNABS from reporting news in areas where allowing reporter access would pose a genuine threat to National Security. If it is thought that the nation is restricting too much access then an appeal can be made, which must be taken to, and decided on by, the regulatory committee (clause 3).

3) The World Assembly UNABS will be regulated by a committee fully staffed with impartial members who will ensure only the truth is reported. In matters where the truth isn’t clear, the report must be totally objective and unbiased, again to be regulated by the committee.

4) It is up to the UNABS to decide what relevant news is, in the same way a regular media organisation does. However, areas of focus should include (but are not limited to): politics, sport, natural disasters, general entertainment, national conflicts and business.

5) Nations of the World Assembly will give their citizens full access to the news being reported by the UNABS via all available broadcast media, including the internet, television, radio and newspapers. For nations with limited availability of those mentioned, the news must be provided using the maximum possible means (i.e. radio and newspapers for those without TVs and computers)

6) The UNABS will: provide internet updates via a website; transmit radio and television broadcasts; distribute summarised news reports to be printed in local newspapers; and make news available via any other popular broadcast media. These will be available to all citizens of the World Assembly in accordance with clause 5.

7) The UNABS will be a non-profit organisation, being funded by every World Assembly member nation. Each nation must provide a percentage of the funds needed to run the agency, based on a combination of how many member nations there are and the size of their GDP at the time of funding.

Anyway, I'd like to start again. It's clear to me now that there were far too many problems with the above, so I'd like to start by bouncing a few ideas around about a possible proposal to do with freedom of the press before I get on with writing and bringing a first draft in here.

I think the main thing I'm trying to accomplish with a proposal like this is to essentially force WA nations to allow international press inside their borders and to broadcast international news to their people. It's the idea that all citizens have a right to hear about international news as well as news from their own country, and to be educated about world affairs. One could view it as an extension of resolution 30, "Freedom of Expression", in that at the moment we have the idea that people have a right to say what they want in their own nation, but people should also be allowed to have their views heard in other nations and equally hear the views of citizens in other nations.

So I'd like to ask for some help. What are the general thoughts on a proposal like this? Should it be relatively specific or more open? Are there any extra things that could be included? Apart from saying, "press should be allowed inside all borders and broadcasts should include international news" for example, what else could be done?

I appreciate any thoughts on the matter.
Thanks.

As an aside, I've always wondered why no resolution has ever been passed under the gambling category. I assume it's a bit too specific of a category to get a resolution out of it, but why is it still there? Can anyone shed any light on that?

First - yay for drafting threads! So much fun to be had here.

Second - if you don't mind sharing, what were the specific legality issue(s) that got your proposal deleted? I had a list of at least 3 or 4 going, myself, but some of them were more arguable than obvious. We should probably start, I'd think, by clearing up whatever legality issues were in the way.

Third - One of the biggest problems that I had, personally, with your original proposal is that the international news organization would "magically" know the truth and be able to report accordingly. The truth isn't always as straightforward as we'd like - especially when it comes to subjects like politics or other government-specific news. And, in those cases, the truth can be an always changing thing - and what the truth is found to be can depend on which witnesses/etc., were interviewed on a given subject.

(OOC: In my history classes, for example, I remember one of my teachers saying that "the history books are written by the winners," which really makes sense. Whoever wins a war (or an election or ... whatever), has the political/social power and authority to make their narrative into the accepted one. It's rare to find an article or column (or, hell, newspaper or news magazine) without a slant. I'm pretty confident that we have Freedom of the Press here in the U.S., but if you read a story on the same subject in the New York Times and then in the Wall Street Journal, you'll get two VERY different perspectives. And that's okay! At least, I think so.

)

I'd suggest rather than having an international news organization reporting from within a given nation (which could fall afoul of the passport resolution that I'm too lazy to read and review in detail), I would prefer if you would encourage member nations to allow for multiple independent news organizations/outlets to operate from within their borders. I would also recommend encouraging the sharing of international news (be it "international" like WA News or "international" such as news about an outside nation or region) between nations, as well.

Anyhow, I guess that's enough of my talking for now, but hopefully we can work out a proposal that fits what you're looking for while still being legal ... and, preferably, something that I find palatable. (Although, believe it or not, proposals that I don't like do sometimes pass ....

)

Best of luck,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

by **Mousebumples** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:02 pm

Monikian WA Mission wrote:"Or better yet you can drop the idea entirely and work on something that actually is an international issue. I can think of at least five resolutions in need of a repeal." Faliksa said nodding.

Which 5? I can think of at least 3 for which repeals are presently being drafted.

And I'd love to get Stem Cells off the books, but I think a cold day in hell will come along first .....

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:08 am

Mousebumples wrote:
Monikian WA Mission wrote:"Or better yet you can drop the idea entirely and work on something that actually is an international issue. I can think of at least five resolutions in need of a repeal." Faliksa said nodding.

Which 5? I can think of at least 3 for which repeals are presently being drafted.

And I'd love to get Stem Cells off the books, but I think a cold day in hell will come along first .....

"You just had to force me to pull out this heavy WA codex didn't you" Faliksa said with a smirk. "I don't know why they haven't gone over to carbon based electronic formats--oh wait thats right, that would make sense, silly me." Faliksa pulled the heavy tome from her desk drawer feining it being far heavier than it really was.

"We'll start with GAR#1" Faliksa giggled at this because she knew it would never happen. "I jest I jest.

"But seriously in no order of importance the following resolutions need to be repealed because they are either terrible or none of the WA's business: GAR#141 "Permit Male Circumcision", GAR#136 "Convention on Wartime Deceased", GAR#139 "Consumer Product Safety", GAR#134 "Guns and Mental Capacity", GAR#130 "Elections and Assistance Act", GAR#118 "Ethics in International Trade Act", GAR#113 "The Gem Trading Accord", GAR#114 "On Female Genital Mutilation", GAR#107 "Clean Water Act", GAR#110 "Identity Theft Prevention Act", GAR#86 "Museums of Musical Heritage", GAR#82 "Universal Clinical Trials Act", GAR#84 "Ban on Forced Disappearances", GAR#72 "Cultural Heritage Protection", GAR#74 "Medical Blockade Restriction", GAR#70 "International Competition Law", GAR#64 "Food and Drug Standards", GAR#65 "Biological Weapons Conference", GAR#56 "Numismatics Appreciation Act", GAR#52 "Food Welfare Act", GAR#54 "Dignified End of Life Choices", GAR#42 "WA Environmental Council", GAR#43 "WA Labor Relations Act", GAR#38 "Convention Against Genocide", GAR#31 "World Health Authority", GAR#21 "Living Wage Act", GAR#19 "Child Protection Act", GAR#15 "Freedom of Marriage Act", GAR#7 "Workplace Safety Standards Act", GAR#4 "Restrictions on Child Labor",

"That is of course not to say that we necessarily disagree with every one of these resolutions. Most we feel are just not international issues and should be left up to the Member Nations. Others are absolute dreck and are horrible, and still others we simply disagree with."

by **Broughdom** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:45 am

Mousebumples wrote:First - yay for drafting threads! So much fun to be had here.

Second - if you don't mind sharing, what were the specific legality issue(s) that got your proposal deleted? I had a list of at least 3 or 4 going, myself, but some of them were more arguable than obvious. We should probably start, I'd think, by clearing up whatever legality issues were in the way.

Third - One of the biggest problems that I had, personally, with your original proposal is that the international news organization would "magically" know the truth and be able to report accordingly. The truth isn't always as straightforward as we'd like - especially when it comes to subjects like politics or other government-specific news. And, in those cases, the truth can be an always changing thing - and what the truth is found to be can depend on which witnesses/etc., were interviewed on a given subject.

Hi. Thanks for the post. There were two legality issues pointed out to me by the mods, both in clause 3. The first was the obvious committee one - I'd followed the correct steps up to the point of mentioning "fully staffed by impartial members" rather than leaving it up to gnomes. The second was the line "ensure only the truth is reported" contradicting resolution #30: Freedom of Expression. The idea being that regulating certain editorials would violate the writers freedom of expression. To be honest all that "truth" business in my proposal was a big sticking point anyway, beyond just the legality of it as you mentioned.

I'd suggest rather than having an international news organization reporting from within a given nation (which could fall afoul of the passport resolution that I'm too lazy to read and review in detail), I would prefer if you would encourage member nations to allow for multiple independent news organizations/outlets to operate from within their borders. I would also recommend encouraging the sharing of international news (be it "international" like WA News or "international" such as news about an outside nation or region) between nations, as well.

My first post may have been misunderstood, but this is the way I was hoping to go rather than continuing the pursuit of my initial proposal. The idea of a WA news agency seems to have a few too many issues with it, especially relating to how it would be regulated to be fair etc. so I was thinking more along these lines. The idea that borders in all WA member states should be open to the press of all other nations in the WA. I think "encouraging" could be a key word in sharing of international news, since as a poster above says it's difficult to really say that nations have to report international news as they could be as biased about it as they like. I wonder if there could also be something in there that allows citizens of WA nations to access international news sources (I'm mainly thinking of the internet here, so for example not allowing the blocking of media websites from other WA countries).

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:41 am

The idea that borders in all WA member states should be open to the press of all other nations in the WA.

"That idea would certainly have fewer legality issues. However, I'm sure that many nations would be opposed to it on the grounds that they do not want, news/propaganda from other nations--presumably nations with different ideologies in their territory.

"For example Nation A might be a fascist nation, and Nation B might be a communist nation. Neither Nation A or Nation B would want news/propaganda from either nation freely distributed amongst their populace.

I think "encouraging" could be a key word in sharing of international news, since as a poster above says it's difficult to really say that nations have to report international news as they could be as biased about it as they like.

"We're not sure whether or not that word or any word would mitigate the problems with the idea of requiring, which is what the Compliance Ministry takes every verb to mean, that nations open up their boarders to foreign press--even if for the purposes of international news.

"One would be hard pressed to find any news service that isn't biased in some way, whether that be a political bias or an economic bias or a social bias. News reporting is subject to the social conditions, economic base and political superstructure just like everything else.

I wonder if there could also be something in there that allows citizens of WA nations to access international news sources (I'm mainly thinking of the internet here, so for example not allowing the blocking of media websites from other WA countries).

"We would suggest reviewing the internet neutrality resolution, though we can't remember the title at the moment. I'd rather not go through that long book again. To be sure that this has not already been covered. Again it faces the same problems I mentioned before. Some nations might be connected to the internet on a governmental level or on a level that requires that one have certain clearances but may also have its own Intra-net which they would want to keep closed."

by **Broughdom** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:00 pm

Monikian WA Mission wrote:
The idea that borders in all WA member states should be open to the press of all other nations in the WA.

"That idea would certainly have fewer legality issues. However, I'm sure that many nations would be opposed to it on the grounds that they do not want, news/propaganda from other nations--presumably nations with different ideologies in their territory.

"For example Nation A might be a fascist nation, and Nation B might be a communist nation. Neither Nation A or Nation B would want news/propaganda from either nation freely distributed amongst their populace.

The main idea would be to allow press from other nations into the country to report news back in their own nation, not necessarily having other news agencies distribute news around the country. Maybe a clause could be mentioned to avoid confusion in that regard.

I wonder if there could also be something in there that allows citizens of WA nations to access international news sources (I'm mainly thinking of the internet here, so for example not allowing the blocking of media websites from other WA countries).

"We would suggest reviewing the internet neutrality resolution, though we can't remember the title at the moment. I'd rather not go through that long book again. To be sure that this has not already been covered. Again it faces the same problems I mentioned before. Some nations might be connected to the internet on a governmental level or on a level that requires that one have certain clearances but may also have its own Intra-net which they would want to keep closed."

I've had a read of it and it seems to concern itself with internet service providers rather than the government. The government is still allowed to censor what it wants from the internet with that proposal. My aim would be to stop that happening when it comes to news websites from other nations. If the internet isn't open to the general public in a nation or is an "intra-net" then it wouldn't apply because citizens don't have access at all. However it would be a case of "if the internet exists in your country, you cannot restrict access to these sites". If the government don't want to allow internet access to all or some of its citizens then that is their business, but they can't give them the internet without access to other news websites.

Essentially with this proposal I'm saying that it would no longer be possible for nations to stop international press reporting what goes on in their country, and it would be more difficult (but not impossible) for nations to restrict what their own citizens can see in terms of international news. That's what I'm aiming for.

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:47 pm

Broughdom wrote:
Monikian WA Mission wrote:
"That idea would certainly have fewer legality issues. However, I'm sure that many nations would be opposed to it on the grounds that they do not want, news/propaganda from other nations--presumably nations with different ideologies in their territory.

"For example Nation A might be a fascist nation, and Nation B might be a communist nation. Neither Nation A or Nation B would want news/propaganda from either nation freely distributed amongst their populace.

The main idea would be to allow press from other nations into the country to report news back in their own nation, not necessarily having other news agencies distribute news around the country. Maybe a clause could be mentioned to avoid confusion in that regard.

"We would have to see the actual language of such a proposal before we could say whether we would be in favor or opposed to it.

I've had a read of it and it seems to concern itself with internet service providers rather than the government. The government is still allowed to censor what it wants from the internet with that proposal. My aim would be to stop that happening when it comes to news websites from other nations. If the internet isn't open to the general public in a nation or is an "intra-net" then it wouldn't apply because citizens don't have access at all. However it would be a case of "if the internet exists in your country, you cannot restrict access to these sites". If the government don't want to allow internet access to all or some of its citizens then that is their business, but they can't give them the internet without access to other news websites.

Essentially with this proposal I'm saying that it would no longer be possible for nations to stop international press reporting what goes on in their country, and it would be more difficult (but not impossible) for nations to restrict what their own citizens can see in terms of international news. That's what I'm aiming for.

"In that case it seems that that may be a legal area to attempt legislation in. That said, we would expect that many nations would not appreciate attempts by this body to tell them that they couldn't censor news/propaganda from foreign sources as an assault on their sovereignty. But over all we would have to see the legislation before we could support it or oppose it.

"Over all the opinon of the Monikian government is that foreign news services and foreign news should stay out of our Star Empire as much as possible. We, however, cannot prevent sub-space transmissions from passing through our interstellar space, though we can and do jam them in our interplanetary regions."

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:10 pm

Glen-Rhodes might be able to sign on to something like this. But would the proposal be about press as an industry or press as technology? The distinction being between freedom of newspapers to print stories and freedom of people to write those stories, or any other 'news' items even if not published in newspapers or equivalent publications.

- Dr. B. Castro

by **Broughdom** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:44 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Glen-Rhodes might be able to sign on to something like this. But would the proposal be about press as an industry or press as technology? The distinction being between freedom of newspapers to print stories and freedom of people to write those stories, or any other 'news' items even if not published in newspapers or equivalent publications.

- Dr. B. Castro

I'm not sure if I'm confused by your question or not, but I believe in the way you've put it the proposal would be about press as an industry. The only press to be considered by this proposal would be that which has officially been deemed a media organisation in their own country, not random snippits of "news" from just any source.

Currently from resolution 30 we have:

. Therefore it's already required in all WA nations that people are free to write what they like, and the media (newspapers, TV, etc) is free to publish those stories. What we don't have is anything regarding international issues. For example, a reporter in one nation is free to write what he likes about things in his own nation, but could be restricted from either leaving his own nation or entering another nation, and so cannot write about issues happening there. The primary aim of this proposal would be to allow that reporter access to any other WA nation, and therefore due to resolution 30 can then write about the proceedings there and report it back in his own country.

The secondary aim is to make it more difficult for nations to restrict their citizens from accessing news from international media sources which I have mentioned above with regards to the internet as an example.

However that has got me thinking about something. Res 30 says "Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media". Does this mean that nations have to allow any media sources available in the world today, or just allow freedom of expression in any media sources that exist in their country (meaning they could outlaw all media sources in their country to restrict their people from seeing any news at all)? Maybe I should include something in the proposal that addresses the ability for media organisations to operate in their own country first, before moving on to the international aspects?

by **Mousebumples** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:28 pm

What may be the most useful (and easiest! I like easiest

) for all of us at this point is to have you write a super-rough draft of what you would OPTIMALLY like to include in your proposal - presuming that there were no proposal rules or other passed legislation that may be contradicted, etc.

And, a color-coded commentary could help to clear up your intentions with a given clause or so.
(This is how I do my commentary on proposal drafts)

Code: Select all: [color=#0000FF][i](This is how I do my commentary on proposal drafts)[/i][/color]

We could then help you iron out illegalities, contradictions, etc., and try to create the best possible proposal from there.

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:31 pm

Mousebumples wrote:What may be the most useful (and easiest! I like easiest ) for all of us at this point is to have you write a super-rough draft of what you would OPTIMALLY like to include in your proposal - presuming that there were no proposal rules or other passed legislation that may be contradicted, etc.

And, a color-coded commentary could help to clear up your intentions with a given clause or so.
(This is how I do my commentary on proposal drafts)
Code: Select all
[color=#0000FF][i](This is how I do my commentary on proposal drafts)[/i][/color]

We could then help you iron out illegalities, contradictions, etc., and try to create the best possible proposal from there.

I pretty much do the same thing but I don't use color codes. But yes sometimes writing a super rough draft is best.

by **Broughdom** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:32 pm

Mousebumples wrote:What may be the most useful (and easiest! I like easiest ) for all of us at this point is to have you write a super-rough draft of what you would OPTIMALLY like to include in your proposal - presuming that there were no proposal rules or other passed legislation that may be contradicted, etc.

And, a color-coded commentary could help to clear up your intentions with a given clause or so.
(This is how I do my commentary on proposal drafts)
Code: Select all
[color=#0000FF][i](This is how I do my commentary on proposal drafts)[/i][/color]

We could then help you iron out illegalities, contradictions, etc., and try to create the best possible proposal from there.

Yeah I was going to suggest getting on with a draft proposal. I'll give it a go when I find some time. See where we get with it.
Thanks.

by **Mousebumples** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:33 pm

Monikian WA Mission wrote:I pretty much do the same thing but I don't use color codes. But yes sometimes writing a super rough draft is best.

I mainly use color codes to separate proposal text from commentary text in an obvious way. Of course, I also use ~~strikeouts~~ and color-code inserted text when I update to a new version. But I'm geeky enough to enjoy seeing, obviously, what has changed from Version III to Version IV.

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:05 pm

Yes well for me, too much coding gets in the way. Thats why I don't do it.

by **Broughdom** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:49 pm

Okay so the spoiler box below is my attempt at a rough draft. I obviously put a bit of thought into it (more so the operative clauses than the preambulatory clauses) but since it's the very first draft I would expect a fair bit of change. Anyway, I've finally got it done so I hope this make things easier as you requested ;)

***** everything above is pretty much blurb, but this bit specifically I'm unsure how to word it. The fair and free press bit just doesn't seem to sit right.
+++++ not sure how this sits with the house of cards rule but I put it in anyway as it should be easy to amend if necessary.
~~~~~ the gist of this one is that a nation could still choose restrict the press, but indirectly and with difficulty by getting rid of all media technologies (ie. if it exists in the country a news media organisation is still allowed to utilise it to provide news). Even then an organisation could still operate, but citizens would have to go directly to the organisation building to get the news.

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:56 pm

Faliksa straightened herself in her chair. "Alright lets get to work on this."

Observing that there is no uniform set of rules governing freedom of press in World Assembly member nations;

"While that may be true, the question should be is this preambulatory clause really necessary? While that may be a true observation, we think that this sentence might set Sovereigntist governments against this proposal from the start.

"Why is that? Because it is observing that X is not a universal set of rules. The very first question they will ask is 'Does there need to be a universal set of rules?'. Many will answer no. We would suggest that clause be stricken in its entirety as its just opening up this proposal for cases to be made against it.

Taking into account the fact that most nations have their own news media organisations which are allowed different levels of freedom in reporting daily news from inside and outside their borders;

"No problem with this clause.

Believing that all citizens of World Assembly member nations have a right to expand their knowledge and be educated about affairs in their own nation along with world affairs;

"We suppose it is okay...but we can see arguments being made against this for classified information, and propaganda efforts being launched against a nation's government. While this may be considered a right by many nations--other nations which do have an official state ideology are more likely to want to limit mass communication (Or propaganda) that runs counter to the official state ideology. For example a fascist nation would oppose unfettered access to communist propaganda and vise versa.

"Furthermore the line between news about, and education about foreign affairs and national affairs and propaganda is nonexistent. Every news report produced has a bias of some sort, indeed it has to because it is created by a sapient being--which being sapient has her own political and cultural biases.

"Perhapes rewording it as follows would help:

Believing that all citizens of World Assembly member nations ~~have a right~~ should have the opportunity to expand their knowledge and be educated about affairs in their own nation along with ~~world~~ international affairs;

"I included a change in the word 'world' to 'international' because some nations might argue that by 'world' the proposal means Terra and does not apply to any other celestial body that they might occupy.

Defining a media technology to be any technology used for mass communication of information (including the Internet, television, newspapers, and radio);

"This is okay...but some small changes it could be better. The rewording should look like this.

Defining a media technology to be any technology used for mass communication of information, including but not limited to the Internet, television, newspapers, and radio);

"The reasoning behind those changes is as follows. First the enclosed description was unnecessary, most people know what mass communication means in a late industrial society. However, for societies that are more advanced than that they may not use television, radios, newspapers or even an internet. Monkiah for example uses planetary intranets (yes they are plural as we occupy more than one celestial body) where as communication between planets, moons satellites uses subspace frequencies to transmit information at a speed faster than light. If it was left as it was, one could argue that this only applied to internet(s), television, radio and newspapers.

Further defining news media to be those elements of the mass media that focus on delivering news to the general public through various media technologies;

"This definition is just plain bad. News itself isn't defined. I'm not sure that it should since most delegations here have a reasonable understanding of what news is. However, news can also be used and is often used as a means of propaganda. As such, one need merely call any foreign news source 'propaganda' to exempt it.

"The clause should read as follows:

Further defining news media to be those elements of the mass media that focus on delivering ~~news~~objectively true information to the general public through various media technologies;

"By wording it in this way the resolution defines news by default as 'objectively true information', and the reasonable nation theory would suggest that it would ultimately be interpreted as 'objectively true information of recent discovery/origin'.

Further defining a news media organisation to be a self-sustained or government funded body that deals in delivering news to the general public through various media technologies;

"Provided the changes I've suggested to the previous clause has been incorporated into the draft proposal, this clause is redundant. It would be self-evident that any organization which uses news media for the purpose of delivering news to the general public would be a news media organization.

Requests all World Assembly member nations to begin following the guidelines below to ensure a fair and free press

"Requests, suggests that the following operative clauses are optional. We would suggest changing it, the word requests, to 'Calls upon'.

Section I - National News Media

1) Nations will allow national news media organisations to freely report news from and to areas inside their own borders.

2) Citizens will not be restricted access to any national news media sources from media technologies which are available in the nation.

"These are fine as they are.

3) Nations will not interfere with or restrict reports from news media organisations in accordance with Resolution 30: Freedom of Expression.

"If Resolution 30 were to be repealed, as unlikely as that is, this clause would be rendered inoperable. Not to mention there are often very good reasons to restrict reports in the news, for example a report about the status of the military could contain classified information. We suggest the following changes.

3) Nations will not interfere with or restrict reports from news media organisations, except in cases where national security may be threatened by the free report of the information;~~in accordance with Resolution 30: Freedom of Expression.~~

4) National news media organisations will be free to report international news without censorship.

Section II - International News Media

5) Citizens will not be restricted access to any international news media sources from media technologies which are available in the nation.

6) Nations will open their borders to all reporters from international news media organisations.

Section III - Reporter Legality & Access

7) Reporters will be recognised as such if they are officially employed by a news media organisation in at least one WA nation.

8 ) Nations reserve the right to restrict reporter access to areas where allowing it would pose a genuine threat to national security.

"Looks good to me for now.

Section IV - Addendum

9) Nations are otherwise free to control the availability of all media technologies as they see fit.

"The word 'clarifies' should be inserted before the word 'nations' in the final clause."

by **Broughdom** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:45 pm

Thanks for the detailed reply on it. I've made the changes you suggested as I agree with what you're saying and this is where I'm at now:

Apart from the changes you suggested, I also changed clauses 2 and 5 to read "...access to any (inter)national news sources from media technologies..." rather than "...access to any (inter)national news media sources from media technologies..." since technically news media could also be a source of news. It just sounded better that way anyway.

Okay so that's where we are at the moment with the changes you suggested. Certainly looks a lot better now. I wonder if there are any other comments on if from anyone?

by **Vocatus** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:55 pm

We take issue with the clauses forbidding censorship. If a nation has laws that prohibit over-the-air swearing or restrict particularly violent scenes to certain hours, how would those be affected?

by **Broughdom** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:01 pm

Vocatus wrote:We take issue with the clauses forbidding censorship. If a nation has laws that prohibit over-the-air swearing or restrict particularly violent scenes to certain hours, how would those be affected?

That's a fair point. Maybe that clause (since there is only one) should read: "4) National news media organisations will be free to report international news in the same way they report national news."

Or words to that effect?

EDIT: If you also mean clause 3), then personally I read it as nations specifically interfering or getting involved with certain reports. If there are rules such as you mentioned regarding certain distasteful scenes then I don't see them being affected. The news can still be reported.

[PASSED] Freedom of the Press

[PASSED] Freedom of the Press

Who is online