Proposal concerning free speech on the Internet

[American Imperial State]

I wish to present to the Assembly a proposal that would include several provisions;

The international definition of a 'public internet forum' should be any forum open to public registration or available on public search engines.

Any Public forum that earns money through advertisement, has open registration and is posted on public search engines shall be required to follow World Assembly Resolution #30(Freedom of Expression).

Excluding users of said public forum who engage in spam, slander, incitement to violence or the usual exclusionary clauses or cause significant harm(such as trolling)

Said proposal would not restrict public internet forum moderators/owners/admins from regulating general attitudes or behaviours, but would restrict them from deciding what ideological positions they will permit on their forums. Unless that forum was established with a specific ideological purpose(a conservative/liberal/LGBT forum for example). Any other forum catering to political discussion will, however, be so regulated under the proposal. Video hosting websites would also be restricted from interfering with political speech if political speech is at all permitted on their site.

Whereas the Internet is the main communication device for many people and vital to the future of democratic society;
Whereas most political forums and video hosting sites are privately owned;

Be it resolved that a Public Internet Forum shall be defined by this resolution as any Video hosting or Forum where any individual may register using an E-mail address and/or is posted on a public Search Engine and/or earns money through advertisement.

Be it resolved by the World Assembly that any public internet forum shall not discriminate based on the views of the poster but only on the method of communication;

Be it resolved that unless the Public Internet Forum has a specific ideological bent, The right of posters to post their ideological content without discrimination shall be assured.

This resolution shall not be construed to prevent or restrict the administration, moderation or regulation of behaviour by Public Internet Forum owners. It shall not also be construed to prevent the segregation of subjects and topics by thread or sub forum. It shall not prevent forum administrators from retaliating against users who post defamatory, libelous or threatening statements, or makes posts with a specific intent to incite anger.

This resolution shall further not be construed as applying to any Nation or Region who does not have the internet, or does not use the internet.

Any Public Internet Forum that discriminates against ideologies shall be removed from Public Internet Search engines and corporations and government institutions shall be forbidden to do business with violators of this Resolution

I am also considering a resolution or amendment to the current resolution to restrict Search Engines from ideological bias.

[Grays Harbor]

Category? Strength?

[The Silver Sentinel]

Category? Strength?

How this doesn't duplicate GAR #30?

[Devar-Toi]

"To begin with, there is no category, nor strength in regard to this. There are also legal implications, so you need to go over the reading material again.

Now, to address the thought on its own, even if you do correct it so there are no legal issues and it is able to be categorized, Devar-Toi still will not support this drivel. The reason for this is because neither Devar-Toi or Mid-World in its entirety has ever had what you call the internet. I believe we are not the only ones who do not use and are not interested in using it. So, to re-iterate, if your proposal was completely legal and had been fleshed out, Devar-Toi would still not support it."

((Also, real-world things have been mentioned; perhaps not so severely as in other proposals I've read and I'm not entirely certain yet (I'm still reading over everything) if "trolling" and the "LGBT" acronym are real-world terms that are allowed to be used in proposals or not.))

[American Imperial State]

Category? Strength?

I would say it is in the category of
The Furtherment of Democracy

And has a rating of
Significant

And of course, it does not apply to regions who neither have not heard of this great invention of the internet.

[Leppikania]

Whereas the Internet is the main communication device for many people and vital to the future of democratic society;

"What about the nations that don't have internet? What about the ones that have banned it?"

Be it resolved by the World Assembly that any public internet forum shall not discriminate based on the views of the poster but only on the method of communication;

Be it resolved that unless the Public Internet Forum has a specific ideological bent, The right of posters to post their ideological content without discrimination shall be assured.

"Ambassador, this severely limits political debates. If you agree with one's views, why should you argue with them? Similarly, if you disagree with their views, why shouldn't you?"

Any Public Internet Forum that discriminates against ideologies shall be removed from Public Internet Search engines and corporations and government institutions shall be forbidden to do business with violators of this Resolution

"Most forums are free, meaning the staff has a life besides the forum. This would make violating the resolution mean permanent unemployment."

A Public Internet Forum shall be defined by this resolution as any Video hosting or Forum where any individual may register using an E-mail address and/or is posted on a public Search Engine and/or earns money through advertisement.

"Please move this to the beginning. It is extremely important to the resolution at hand. However, it uses an extremely inaccurate definition of a public forum."

[Tinfect]

Whereas the Internet is the main communication device for many people and vital to the future of democratic society;

"This is entirely untrue. The Imperial planetary communications networks neither promote, or are necessary for a "democratic society". Nor is the Imperium democratic."

Be it resolved by the World Assembly that any public internet forum shall not discriminate based on the views of the poster but only on the method of communication;

Be it resolved that unless the Public Internet Forum has a specific ideological bent, The right of posters to post their ideological content without discrimination shall be assured.

This resolution shall not be construed to prevent or restrict the administration, moderation or regulation of behaviour by Public Internet Forum owners. It shall not also be construed to prevent the segregation of subjects and topics by thread or sub forum.

Any Public Internet Forum that discriminates against ideologies shall be removed from Public Internet Search engines and corporations and government institutions shall be forbidden to do business with violators of this Resolution

"Pointless, ineffective, and entirely overreaching micromanagement."

I am also considering a resolution or amendment to the current resolution to restrict Search Engines from ideological bias.

"Amendment is illegal before the secretariat, and such a thing would be only further pointless micromanagement.
The Imperium recommends that this draft be dropped."

[Grays Harbor]

Category? Strength?

I would say it is in the category of
The Furtherment of Democracy

And has a rating of
Significant

And of course, it does not apply to regions who neither have not heard of this great invention of the internet.

How is this furtherment of democracy? Or significant?

You pick a category and write to it, not try to shoehorn an idea into something.

[American Imperial State]

I would say it is in the category of
The Furtherment of Democracy

And has a rating of
Significant

And of course, it does not apply to regions who neither have not heard of this great invention of the internet.

How is this furtherment of democracy? Or significant?

You pick a category and write to it, not try to shoehorn an idea into something.

That's what most people do , i assume. They don't just go through a list of categories and decide what proposal they want to write, some people come here with a proposal in mind and then find out what category best suits it. That's a fair way of going about it.

Whereas the Internet is the main communication device for many people and vital to the future of democratic society;

"This is entirely untrue. The Imperial planetary communications networks neither promote, or are necessary for a "democratic society". Nor is the Imperium democratic."

Be it resolved by the World Assembly that any public internet forum shall not discriminate based on the views of the poster but only on the method of communication;

Be it resolved that unless the Public Internet Forum has a specific ideological bent, The right of posters to post their ideological content without discrimination shall be assured.

This resolution shall not be construed to prevent or restrict the administration, moderation or regulation of behaviour by Public Internet Forum owners. It shall not also be construed to prevent the segregation of subjects and topics by thread or sub forum.

Any Public Internet Forum that discriminates against ideologies shall be removed from Public Internet Search engines and corporations and government institutions shall be forbidden to do business with violators of this Resolution

"Pointless, ineffective, and entirely overreaching micromanagement."

I am also considering a resolution or amendment to the current resolution to restrict Search Engines from ideological bias.

"Amendment is illegal before the secretariat, and such a thing would be only further pointless micromanagement.
The Imperium recommends that this draft be dropped."

The Micromanagement argument is invalid from my point of view -- most resolution provide a similar level of 'micro management'. If you want to start a public forum or a video hosting site, and permit political speech, you cannot and should not limit that political speech unless it is disruptive.

Whereas the Internet is the main communication device for many people and vital to the future of democratic society;

"What about the nations that don't have internet? What about the ones that have banned it?"

Be it resolved by the World Assembly that any public internet forum shall not discriminate based on the views of the poster but only on the method of communication;

Be it resolved that unless the Public Internet Forum has a specific ideological bent, The right of posters to post their ideological content without discrimination shall be assured.

"Ambassador, this severely limits political debates. If you agree with one's views, why should you argue with them? Similarly, if you disagree with their views, why shouldn't you?"

Any Public Internet Forum that discriminates against ideologies shall be removed from Public Internet Search engines and corporations and government institutions shall be forbidden to do business with violators of this Resolution

"Most forums are free, meaning the staff has a life besides the forum. This would make violating the resolution mean permanent unemployment."

A Public Internet Forum shall be defined by this resolution as any Video hosting or Forum where any individual may register using an E-mail address and/or is posted on a public Search Engine and/or earns money through advertisement.

"Please move this to the beginning. It is extremely important to the resolution at hand. However, it uses an extremely inaccurate definition of a public forum."

It doesn't limit debate, it makes it so that if you own a public forum open to public registration that you can't unilaterally refuse to allow certain ideological stances or ideas on your forum, unless you take it off Public search engines and don't make money from it. Those nations that do not have the internet for whatever reason are obviously not bound to follow it. This legislation does not require you to make or even possess an internet, and only regulated those nations who have or use the internet.

"To begin with, there is no category, nor strength in regard to this. There are also legal implications, so you need to go over the reading material again.

Now, to address the thought on its own, even if you do correct it so there are no legal issues and it is able to be categorized, Devar-Toi still will not support this drivel. The reason for this is because neither Devar-Toi or Mid-World in its entirety has ever had what you call the internet. I believe we are not the only ones who do not use and are not interested in using it. So, to re-iterate, if your proposal was completely legal and had been fleshed out, Devar-Toi would still not support it."

((Also, real-world things have been mentioned; perhaps not so severely as in other proposals I've read and I'm not entirely certain yet (I'm still reading over everything) if "trolling" and the "LGBT" acronym are real-world terms that are allowed to be used in proposals or not.))

I'm willing to accept criticism of the wording of the bill, absolutely.

Category? Strength?

How this doesn't duplicate GAR #30?

GAR 30 regulates free speech from a government point of view, this provides that forum hosts and video website hosts must also provide for free speech.



A general statement;

I intend this bill to reach the general assembly assuming the proposal itself is legal. The fact that you can be banned from forums listed publically on corporate search engines for merely expressing your political beliefs is a travesty that harms all speech. That's not to say trolls, spammers and behaviour cannot be regulated, but that if someone expresses a political view in the same manner as everyone else, but is banned for the content of their speech, the forum owners should be obligated to permit free speech on their forums. Unless;
1. All political speech is prohibited;

2. It is a forum with a specified political bent;

or 3. It is a private forum not listed on a search engine and which does not earn money from advertisements. Such a private forum should not be open to public registration, but should require a personal invite.

[Grays Harbor]

How is this furtherment of democracy? Or significant?

You pick a category and write to it, not try to shoehorn an idea into something.

That's what most people do , i assume. They don't just go through a list of categories and decide what proposal they want to write, some people come here with a proposal in mind and then find out what category best suits it. That's a fair way of going about it.

No, it's most certainly not "what most people do". Most people have a category in mind for what they want to do, not just pick what best suits it. Wrong category is as illegal as any other rule.

There is no way this is Furtherment of Democracy or Significant strength.

So far, all I have seen here is people pointing out flaws and you telling them "No, you're wrong and I'm right". That is not debate, that is an inability to take criticism. Do yourself a favor, listen.

[American Imperial State]

That's what most people do , i assume. They don't just go through a list of categories and decide what proposal they want to write, some people come here with a proposal in mind and then find out what category best suits it. That's a fair way of going about it.

No, it's most certainly not "what most people do". Most people have a category in mind for what they want to do, not just pick what best suits it. Wrong category is as illegal as any other rule.

There is no way this is Furtherment of Democracy or Significant strength.

So far, all I have seen here is people pointing out flaws and you telling them "No, you're wrong and I'm right". That is not debate, that is an inability to take criticism. Do yourself a favor, listen.

Criticism, when it is constructive.

Well, if it's not furtherment of democracy, then instead of just saying that without qualifying it, it would be nice to know what it's under.

If you have a problem with the wording, suggest amendments to the wording instead of just criticizing without providing a reasoning or solution.

[Tinfect]

The Micromanagement argument is invalid from my point of view -- most resolution provide a similar level of 'micro management'. If you want to start a public forum or a video hosting site, and permit political speech, you cannot and should not limit that political speech unless it is disruptive.

"No, they do not. This draft attempts to legislation on something that is neither an international issue, or a national one."

[American Imperial State]

The Micromanagement argument is invalid from my point of view -- most resolution provide a similar level of 'micro management'. If you want to start a public forum or a video hosting site, and permit political speech, you cannot and should not limit that political speech unless it is disruptive.

"No, they do not. This draft attempts to legislation on something that is neither an international issue, or a national one."

It is a horrific issue in the minds of the American people.

How can you permit site owners/administrators to run political forums and ban forms of speech they disagree with? It's unamerican and any forum owner/administrator or moderator who does so should suffer punishment under the law.

If they don't want to permit free speech on their forums, than they should not be permitted to advertise their forums, have corporate advertisement on their forums and in my opinion should certainly not be provided with any sort of internet access by a major corporation.

The Internet is the new medium of choice, it is similar to a telephone or the cable. We regulate the use of cable and telephone, and you can't start a TV channel without being regulated by the Government, internet forums should be the same way.

Now, if such a bill were to pass, if you go onto a political forum or a video hosting website, and post an opinion with a certain bent, your opinion cannot be discriminated against. If a moderator bans you for the ideological content of your speech and not for the manner in which you express it, you can sue him or have him arrested. Or better yet, you could have him lose his ability to do business with any corporation or government entity. This would be just punishment for his crimes against Freedom.

If you are so inclined to support the infringement of free speech by 'private' forum owners, so be it. But i know where i stand on this issue.

[Devar-Toi]

"I am glad to hear that you're willing to accept others' thoughts and criticisms on the wording here; if it seemed as though I may have been trying to step on your toes, I did not intend it to seem that way. While I am interested in seeing, for the sake of those whose nations have not banned the internet, how far this goes and what happens with this bill, I would still suggest that you re-word it a bit and find a category that would suit it better. Now, it is only a thought that I," Kithara clears her throat and glances around as though making sure she isn't making an idiot of herself before continuing, "Basically pulled out of my ass, but I think something more related to communications or even technology would be better suited to categorize this under than democracy. Now, as I have not been a member of our assembly for long, I have not quite finished all of the reading materials, but that would be my thought about the categorization issue. As for everything else: I do understand how this would not apply to Devar-Toi, nor any other nation that either does not have, or has banned, internet usage- but as I've stated, I am curious to see where this goes with a few modifications. And I would also suggest listening to others with more experience than I, as I do not want to give bad advice unintentionally," She smirks and murmurs, "Now intentionally is another matter entirely- but that is neither here nor there..."

"Anyhow! To address the issues that still remain at hand: further researching what category this should fall under would certainly help. As for the general wording, it appears to me that others who use the internet do not see this bill doing much of anything. While I cannot suggest an amendment that would help you, as the internet is not my forte, I would suggest perhaps re-wording it in its entirety, so you would be able to explain exactly what points you're attempting to make, as it may be confusing in some areas?"

((Of course, Kit's not much help with this. XP OOCly I'd suggest taking the others' thoughts into consideration before you do my own- I haven't been a member of the assembly long enough to be comfortable offering actual edits. I don't want to give bad advice, when others can give good. (This will change soon though!) So, I have to apologize about that.))

[Tinfect]

It is a horrific issue in the minds of the American people.

'Then the "American People" are clearly in desperate need of greater educational standards. Horrific, is not a proprietor doing what they wish with their property, horrific, is the genocide of entire civilizations, horrific, is biological weapons specifically engineered to kill a single species, horrific, is killing billions in less than a second with the order to fire. The Imperium has experience with the horrific. Your people, clearly, do not."

How can you permit site owners/administrators to run political forums and ban forms of speech they disagree with? It's unamerican and any forum owner/administrator or moderator who does so should suffer punishment under the law.

"For one, Ambassador, I am not "American". I am Imperial, of Tinfect and Talkon ancestry in particular. Second, this 'forum' is their property. If they wish to prevent people from using it as a platform to express anti-government ideals, or to promote the superiority of one ethnicity, that is well within their rights."

If they don't want to permit free speech on their forums, than they should not be permitted to advertise their forums, have corporate advertisement on their forums and in my opinion should certainly not be provided with any sort of internet access by a major corporation.

"And what in your opinion is worthy of being enshrined in International Law?"

The Internet is the new medium of choice, it is similar to a telephone or the cable. We regulate the use of cable and telephone, and you can't start a TV channel without being regulated by the Government, internet forums should be the same way.

"The 'Internet' is by no means a recent development, Ambassador. Such planetary networks have been in use within the Imperium for centuries, even before its formation. In any case, do you require a Politically Biased private news network to promote the ideology it is biased against? I would certainly hope not, Ambassador, as that likely falls afoul of extant legislation."

Now, if such a bill were to pass, if you go onto a political forum or a video hosting website, and post an opinion with a certain bent, your opinion cannot be discriminated against. If a moderator bans you for the ideological content of your speech and not for the manner in which you express it, you can sue him or have him arrested. Or better yet, you could have him lose his ability to do business with any corporation or government entity. This would be just punishment for his crimes against Freedom.

"I have no desire to utilize any such 'political discussion forums'. I have my hands quite full with actual politics, Ambassador. This claim of 'crimes against freedom', sounds to me as though you haven't the slightest idea of what either entails."

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond scans his eyes over the proposal for the fourth time, shaking his head. "What on Earth and Heaven is this supposed to mean?"

[The Silver Sentinel]

"No, they do not. This draft attempts to legislation on something that is neither an international issue, or a national one."

It is a horrific issue in the minds of the American people.

How can you permit site owners/administrators to run political forums and ban forms of speech they disagree with? It's unamerican and any forum owner/administrator or moderator who does so should suffer punishment under the law.

If they don't want to permit free speech on their forums, than they should not be permitted to advertise their forums, have corporate advertisement on their forums and in my opinion should certainly not be provided with any sort of internet access by a major corporation.

The Internet is the new medium of choice, it is similar to a telephone or the cable. We regulate the use of cable and telephone, and you can't start a TV channel without being regulated by the Government, internet forums should be the same way.

Now, if such a bill were to pass, if you go onto a political forum or a video hosting website, and post an opinion with a certain bent, your opinion cannot be discriminated against. If a moderator bans you for the ideological content of your speech and not for the manner in which you express it, you can sue him or have him arrested. Or better yet, you could have him lose his ability to do business with any corporation or government entity. This would be just punishment for his crimes against Freedom.

If you are so inclined to support the infringement of free speech by 'private' forum owners, so be it. But i know where i stand on this issue.

You seem to be conflating Real Life with NationStates yet again. I really wish you would take the time to read the fucking RULES first. So far you are simply making yourself look like an ass. And for the record, it is not a bill, it is a draft. When a draft is submitted to the floor it becomes a proposal, and if that proposal makes vote it becomes a resolution. This is not the United States. Here a bill is something you pay after you are done eating in the restaurant.

Are we clear?

[Shazbotdom]

"I'm sorry, Ambassador, but the Shazbotdom Empire feels that this is infringing upon the rights of the populace of the Empire to the N^th degree. Why should we force web site owners within the Empire to succumb to the will of the World Assembly? Within the Empire, the people have limited government involvement in their lives, and this includes privately owned and operated web sites. If they wish to not allow a certain type of people on their web site, that is their choice. If this goes up for a vote of the General Assembly, we will campaign AGAINST it."

[Normlpeople]

"Lets approach this differently" Clover said. "Say you are having a dinner party, and you invite several neighbors into your home, some you do not know well. The topic of politics comes up. One of these neighbors has an extreme political view that your specific ethicity should be put in slave labor camps and worked to death, if not outright externinated.

Would you consider it fair that you can not attempt to silence this person, ask them to leave, or remove them from your.privately owned home simply because politics was brought up and you didn't mention only those whos political beliefs you agree with may speak?

Private property comes with it the right to allow or deny access. Rather it be an internet forum or home.

You may also note that not all of is are 'American'. Nor are we all human. We sure as hell are not democratic. I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with the makeup of the assemby before attempting to ram half-baked legislation through"

OOC: Just because you think 'the majority of Americans' find it a problem doesn't mean the NS universe does. NS is not RL. Id suggest reading the rules/faq and passed resolutions stickies at the top of the forum before proceeding further.

Oh, and file a GHR to get this pulled. Then burn it.

[Cogitation]

You seem to be conflating Real Life with NationStates yet again. I really wish you would take the time to read the fucking RULES first. So far you are simply making yourself look like an ass. And for the record, it is not a bill, it is a draft. When a draft is submitted to the floor it becomes a proposal, and if that proposal makes vote it becomes a resolution. This is not the United States. Here a bill is something you pay after you are done eating in the restaurant.

Are we clear?

*** 1-Day Forumban for Flamebait. *** This is normally an Official Warning offense, but you have a past history of rulebreaking, so that compounds the punishment.

To be specific, there are multiple issues here which, combined, make this an offense: nitpicking AND the use of profanities, while in the process of criticizing another player in a combative and derogatory manner.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator