[CHALLENGE] Repeal: “Freedom Of Expression” - Honest Mistake

[Dirty Americans]

Sorry about this, I have been busy recently at work and I.A. just told me ...

If you think the interpretation of the target here is wrong, so much so to be ‘clearly false’, then I refer you to the legality challenge and the Honest Mistake rule.

Resolution #30 states, "Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;"

Resolution #30 does not in any way prohibit, "the ability to regulate adverts and their means of distribution" since an advert is not just a "view." Moreover, while the resolution does state, "all available media" the use of the term media is broad based. The resolution does not and has never been considered to regulate within a given media. Restricting the advertising of materials to audiences not legally permitted to use the material is not prohibited under GAR #30. Pornographic materials are already prohibited under GAR #30.

Personally I think this is a "Dishonest" Mistake, but since the rule is "Honest" Mistake, I will not question the motivation of using a very thinly disguised "think of the children" argument for the basis of a repeal.

[Liberimery]

I second the challenge in full.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Since I guess +1-ing is a thing again, though we did try clamping down on this after Thyerata hit like on every challenge he saw, I also +1 the challenge. Or, uh, Love reacts only?

My interest in this matter is solely in taking off the absurdist mandate from FoE. If judicial action removes it too, I honestly don’t care. The ends I am seeking are clear. The means to arrive there, from the list of reasonable means before us, aren’t altogether relevant.

[Separatist Peoples]

I second the challenge in full.

Do not do that. Challenges do not need seconds, and they definitely don't need +1s.

[Liberimery]

I second the challenge in full.

Do not do that. Challenges do not need seconds, and they definitely don't need +1s.

My apologies. As an advocate of absolute free speech for all, my intent was to support the the continuation of the at risk resolution.

As I have stated elsewhere a read of the at issue resolution makes no mention in any direction with specific mention to Comercial speech or speech meant to advertise goods or services. We would support a proposal on commercial speech restrictions over a whole sale repeal and replace.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So you’re using legalty challenges, which are fundamentally and inherently about restricting the kinds of proposals that can be proposed to the Assembly... as a crutch to try to save a resolution you like. So not only is it the opposite of free speech, but also politicisation of the judiciary and of legality challenges as a whole. Anyway, tell me why you are so enlightened again?

[Separatist Peoples]

Do not do that. Challenges do not need seconds, and they definitely don't need +1s.

My apologies. As an advocate of absolute free speech for all, my intent was to support the the continuation of the at risk resolution.

As I have stated elsewhere a read of the at issue resolution makes no mention in any direction with specific mention to Comercial speech or speech meant to advertise goods or services. We would support a proposal on commercial speech restrictions over a whole sale repeal and replace.

I agree. But here there is a colorable argument that GAR#30 blocks any legal effort to do so. And the Honest Mistake rule permits colorable arguments of an alternate interpretation. Thus, the repeal doesn't break the rules. If you want to argue that it is a bad idea, do so in the At Vote thread. Challenges are not policy discussions. GenSec will permit a bad policy that is legal just as it will reject a good policy that is illegal.

Your argument needs to be grounded in the rules. Not political opinions.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I don't happen to see advertising regulations, promotion of public health, or "watershed" rules anywhere in the enumerated list of exceptions to GA Res. #30:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

I also don't see a saving similarity clause (e.g. something like "...and for any other truly compelling state interest that is consistent with the goals of this resolution...") - which would require a more expansive reading of the permitted scope of exceptions to the WA's absolute right to free expression. So even if such an expansive reading is permissible (something I have seen argued, and about which I make no comment here), it's not false to say there's nothing in the text that permits it.
What you see is what you get. Therefore the proposed repeal's interpretation of the requirements of its target is reasonable, and there is no Honest Mistake.

[Bears Armed]

The first version that I submitted for the 'Traditional Medicine' resolution was declared illegal by a majority of GenSec's other members because they decided its restriction on advertising unproven substances as medicines contradicted 'Freedom of Expression'.

[Dirty Americans]

Then I propose we impeach, arrest and execute all GenSec members. (JUST KIDDING!)

Seriously though, the thought that one has to repeal a resolution because GenSec sees wording in the resolution that isn't there is ... OK I'll admit it, so DAMN vintage NATIONSTATES. I withdraw my challenge, even though a repeal lasts forever and generations after us will be totally confused as to why this repeal was even legal in the first place.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Seriously though, the thought that one has to repeal a resolution because GenSec sees wording in the resolution that isn't there is ... OK I'll admit it, so DAMN vintage NATIONSTATES. I withdraw my challenge, even though a repeal lasts forever and generations after us will be totally confused as to why this repeal was even legal in the first place.

My repeal is based almost entirely on this seeming consensus amongst the Secretariat. That I recalled three members believed FoE restricted commercial speech is both the content of my repeal and the impetus I had for pursuing it. You mentioned in the other thread that I should do something like mentioning the decision in the repeal. That's not possible: the Secretariat is a OOC body, in the same way the moderators were. Doing so would be breaking perspective.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The first version that I submitted for the 'Traditional Medicine' resolution was declared illegal by a majority of GenSec's other members because they decided its restriction on advertising unproven substances as medicines contradicted 'Freedom of Expression'.

Was there a formal ruling? If so, where. I want to catalogue it if it hasn’t yet been catalogued.

EDIT: I didn’t recall a formal ruling. And looking into it, it doesn’t seem to have a formal ruling. Rather, CD posted here: viewtopic.php?p=33932541#p33932541

[Separatist Peoples]

The first version that I submitted for the 'Traditional Medicine' resolution was declared illegal by a majority of GenSec's other members because they decided its restriction on advertising unproven substances as medicines contradicted 'Freedom of Expression'.

Was there a formal ruling? If so, where. I want to catalogue it if it hasn’t yet been catalogued.

EDIT: I didn’t recall a formal ruling. And looking into it, it doesn’t seem to have a formal ruling. Rather, CD posted here: viewtopic.php?p=33932541#p33932541

It was a game panel action. There was informal discussion by telegram to communicate to each other what our interpretations were. It wasn't the ideal way to deal with the issue, but since BA immediately rectified the issue, we let it lie.