NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Freedom of Expression for Organisations

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 576
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:24 pm

VW53Aland wrote:
Uan aa Boa wrote:If a TV station starting showing tobacco adverts during the cartoons that were based on blatantly false claims and designed to appeal to children then there would be nothing to stop that.
Why not? Because, this example has nothing to do with free speech. A TV station has the right to show tobacco adverts during cartoons, unless a government sets boundaries to this (for instance by allowing tobacco adverts only after 8PM) because they value the health of their people, particularly that of children. Free speech is not a synonym for advertisement. Governments can set limits as they see fit.

Free speech is not a synonym for advertisement, but advertisement is an example of free speech. An advertisement is when a company says something it hopes will induce you to buy its products. If that company has the same free speech rights as an individual then GA #436 forbids the government from hindering that free speech (i.e. the advert) unless it falls into one of a number of specific categories. There's no provision there for restricting an advert on the grounds that it tells lies, for example. An advert could be restricted if it "constitutes a threat to health and safety" but you won't make that stick with a tobacco advert because (a) promoting behaviours associated with negative health outcomes is not the same thing as constituting a threat to health and safety (this is essentially the "yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre" clause) and(b) tobacco companies can peddle the usual bull about persuading existing smokers to change brand rather than encouraging people to start smoking.

I concede that GA #436 does have a protection of minors clause, but edited as you suggest it would absolutely establish the presumption that companies can advertise however they choose outside the scope of very specific exceptions.

No, I don't see it that way. I would just change one word and if the majority of the WA votes For this small correction, then the legislation passes. United Massachusetts has near to nothing to do with that, except that if they are a WA-member, they can vote too. For all I care, they can have the credit for this correction - I don't need it.

A resolution can't be amended, even by one word, it can only be repealed. That's just the rules. Somebody would have to submit a replacement resolution, and if that resolution was the same one except for one single word then it would be plagiarism without the explicit consent of the original author. That's the rules too.

I just think it is weird and confusing that we would create one law for when one person says something and then create a complete, different, other law for when two or more people say the same thing. It is like placing dual speed limit signs along every road, with different limits - one for when there's only a driver in the car and one for when he has passengers on board as well. It is confusing and illogic.

You haven't understood what a legal person is. It's an entity able to have rights and obligations in law. Two people in a car together don't combine to make one legal person. The driver is responsible for observing the speed limit. A demonstration is a crowd of people saying the same thing, but it's not a legal person. You couldn't enter into a contract with it, or sue it. If it trespasses on private property then every individual demonstrator is guilty of trespass but there is no collective entity that's also guilty of trespass. The demonstrators are protected by their individual right to free speech and by the WA resolution of freedom of assembly.

Thyerata wrote: However, we strenuously object to the notion that corporations have human rights (such as the right to freedom of speech) in the same way that a natural person does.

I share the sentiment, but legal persons aren't all corporations. They include the cinema that could be banned from showing films considered politically subversive, the trade union that could be prevented from acting in court on behalf of workers, and the civil rights or environmental groups speaking out against the government. Without some legislation, even though this proposal has failed, these can all be arbitrarily shut down by the government. Neither can a proposal protect not-for-profit organisation alone because corporations will simply act through not-for-profit subsidiaries. Whatever type of organisation is protected, the corporate sector can assume that form. Like it or not (and I don't), whatever rights Amnesty International has are also held by Exxon.
Last edited by Uan aa Boa on Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
VW53Aland
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Jun 30, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby VW53Aland » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:37 pm

Uan aa Boa wrote:That's the rules too.
Hm, well, one could make it too complicated too.

Uan aa Boa wrote:You haven't understood what a legal person is.
I very well know what a legal person is. Maybe my comparison was not very good. But that's why it was only a comparison and not exactly the same thing. But, let me re-state then that it just looks weird and confusing to me if you create one law for a single person and create a completely different set of laws for all other legal entities (other than a single person) regarding the same subject. But hey, be my guest.

User avatar
Xanthal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1017
Founded: Apr 16, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Xanthal » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:50 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Associations, including corporations, are made up of people. People do not lose their right to speech merely because they exercise their right to associate. Extending similar rights to organizations, including business entities, and curtailing those rights only when necessary, is the only way to avoid infringing on the rights of individuals."

I'm familiar with the philosophy, but I don't subscribe to it and neither does my government. The issue here is not an individual's right to speak for herself or to associate with whom she chooses, it is whether organizations can be granted different rights and responsibilities than individuals. To assert that a person's rights are inseparable from an organization's rights presumes that the organization exists purely to serve the people within it- it makes the organization into a libertarian ideal, nothing more than the sum of its parts. I do not believe that stance is credible. In fact, most organizations are at least partly if not mostly structured the other way around: they recruit members to serve the organization, or- more to the point- the people at the top of the organization. To the extent that this is true, and that such a relationship can be coercive or exploitative, it can in fact be necessary to curtail the rights of the organization to protect the rights of those within it.

This isn't to understate the benefits which organizations can and do afford to those who are a part of them, which are massive, only to point out that the relationship of the whole to its parts is complicated, and- in the opinion of the Federation- warrants full consideration of the nature of that whole in determining its status under the law.
Last edited by Xanthal on Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
General Assembly IC
Security Council OOC

User avatar
Cosmopolitan borovan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1033
Founded: Jan 18, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Cosmopolitan borovan » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:23 pm

Organizations need the benefits of legal persons.its only fair

User avatar
Thyerata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thyerata » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:51 am

VW53Aland wrote:
Thyerata wrote:However, we strenuously object to the notion that corporations have human rights (such as the right to freedom of speech) in the same way that a natural person does.
So, you state that you, as a natural person should have the right to state, what you just stated here, but as spokesperson for your government (i.e. an organisation other that a single natural person) should not have the right to do so.

So, by your objection, you should not have to right to object to this.


I don't know about your nation, sir, but my Government is not a corporation (that is, it is not "Government of Thyerata PLC" or similar), so the above does not apply to it.
From the Desk of the Honourable Matthew Merriweather Ph.D. (Law, 2040) LLM Public and International Law, 2036) LLB Law (2035) (all from Thyerata State University)
Thytian Ambassador to the World Assembly and Security Council

I'm a gay LLM candidate with mild Asperger syndrome and only one functioning eye. My IC posts may reflect this, so please be aware

User avatar
VW53Aland
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Jun 30, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby VW53Aland » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:13 am

Thyerata wrote:I don't know about your nation, sir, but my Government is not a corporation (that is, it is not "Government of Thyerata PLC" or similar), so the above does not apply to it.
So, you want to divide legal entities into 'individuals and governments' and 'corporations'?
Then, in which of these groups would you place:
  • associations?
  • foundations?
  • unions?
  • cooperatives?
  • partnerships?
  • religious orders?
Or would you prefer a separate law for each and every possible legal entity, with regards to their freedom of expression?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13431
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:54 am

VW53Aland wrote:
Thyerata wrote:I don't know about your nation, sir, but my Government is not a corporation (that is, it is not "Government of Thyerata PLC" or similar), so the above does not apply to it.
So, you want to divide legal entities into 'individuals and governments' and 'corporations'?
Then, in which of these groups would you place:
  • associations?
  • foundations?
  • unions?
  • cooperatives?
  • partnerships?
  • religious orders?
Or would you prefer a separate law for each and every possible legal entity, with regards to their freedom of expression?

"Sole proprietorships, political action committees, professional associations, revocable and irrevocable trusts, limited liability companies..."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Thyerata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thyerata » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:01 am

VW53Aland wrote:
Thyerata wrote:I don't know about your nation, sir, but my Government is not a corporation (that is, it is not "Government of Thyerata PLC" or similar), so the above does not apply to it.
So, you want to divide legal entities into 'individuals and governments' and 'corporations'?
Then, in which of these groups would you place:
  • associations?
  • foundations?
  • unions?
  • cooperatives?
  • partnerships?
  • religious orders?
Or would you prefer a separate law for each and every possible legal entity, with regards to their freedom of expression?


Thre is no doubt that they have personality, sirs. We do not accept, sirs, that they can have human rights such as freedom of expression. In Thyerata, a corporation or other legal entity cannot sue for the enforcement of rights, but its directors or others in charge thereof can sue for enforcement of their own rights. The fact that those rights arise from their work with or for such entities is incidental.
From the Desk of the Honourable Matthew Merriweather Ph.D. (Law, 2040) LLM Public and International Law, 2036) LLB Law (2035) (all from Thyerata State University)
Thytian Ambassador to the World Assembly and Security Council

I'm a gay LLM candidate with mild Asperger syndrome and only one functioning eye. My IC posts may reflect this, so please be aware

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 576
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Uan aa Boa » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:26 am

Thyerata wrote:Thre is no doubt that they have personality, sirs. We do not accept, sirs, that they can have human rights such as freedom of expression. In Thyerata, a corporation or other legal entity cannot sue for the enforcement of rights, but its directors or others in charge thereof can sue for enforcement of their own rights. The fact that those rights arise from their work with or for such entities is incidental.

Looking it up, it appears your nation does hold multi-party elections, so presumably (even though the state controls all your media) you allow those parties to express their opinions and policies. You don't protect that freedom in law, however, so nothing prevents a future government in your nation from deciding to silence political parties and protesting organisations, reducing the opposition to a scattering of individuals. That is the sort of problem this proposal was designed to address.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8275
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:37 am

So how does standing work? And what happens when a limited-liability company is sued for, say, fraudulently creating savings accounts to pad their figures? Suing the directors shouldn't have the same impact as suing the company: (1) they can't possible know everything the company does, (2) they don't own the whole company, (3) most directors don't have plenary authority to change or enact their will on a company. There are significant corporate governance problems which you're just handwaving away, unless every company is a sole-proprietorship.

What happens when a company owns some IP and it's infringed upon? How do they sue? How are damages assessed? A single stakeholder's claim will be far smaller than the company's claim. If a single stakeholder can collect all damages, then it is blatantly unfair and really just a question of who files first. If a single stakeholder can't collect all damages, then there is a collective action problem and people infringe on whatever they want since most shareholders don't have the resources to sue for recompense.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17343
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:12 am

Thyerata wrote:There is no doubt that they have personality, sirs. We do not accept, sirs, that they can have human rights such as freedom of expression. In Thyerata, a corporation or other legal entity cannot sue for the enforcement of rights, but its directors or others in charge thereof can sue for enforcement of their own rights. The fact that those rights arise from their work with or for such entities is incidental.

"Wouldn't this also mean that corporations can't own property, and so every piece of property that they use (including 'intellectual property, as well as premises, vehicles, machinery, materials, etc...) must actually be the property of a specific director or other individual person? After all, if corporations as corporations could own property then under your law they would apparently be unable to bring legal cases for any unauthorised infringement upon or damage to those properties..."
"Seems like a verrry awkward way of running things, to me."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
Last edited by Bears Armed on Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8275
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:18 am

"Freedom of expression for organisations" was defeated 11,770 votes to 3,109.

Also, I love sentence case.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Thyerata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thyerata » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:35 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Thyerata wrote:There is no doubt that they have personality, sirs. We do not accept, sirs, that they can have human rights such as freedom of expression. In Thyerata, a corporation or other legal entity cannot sue for the enforcement of rights, but its directors or others in charge thereof can sue for enforcement of their own rights. The fact that those rights arise from their work with or for such entities is incidental.

"Wouldn't this also mean that corporations can't own property, and so every piece of property that they use (including 'intellectual property, as well as premises, vehicles, machinery, materials, etc...) must actually be the property of a specific director or other individual person? After all, if corporations as corporations could own property then under your law they would apparently be unable to bring legal cases for any unauthorised infringement upon or damage to those properties..."
"Seems like a verrry awkward way of running things, to me."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


Corporations and other legal persons can do everything that a natural person can. Except enforce human rights, because they don't have any
From the Desk of the Honourable Matthew Merriweather Ph.D. (Law, 2040) LLM Public and International Law, 2036) LLB Law (2035) (all from Thyerata State University)
Thytian Ambassador to the World Assembly and Security Council

I'm a gay LLM candidate with mild Asperger syndrome and only one functioning eye. My IC posts may reflect this, so please be aware

User avatar
Cosmopolitan borovan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1033
Founded: Jan 18, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Cosmopolitan borovan » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:19 pm

Bookmarking this discussion on legal person

User avatar
VW53Aland
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Jun 30, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby VW53Aland » Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:49 pm

Thyerata wrote:Corporations and other legal persons can do everything that a natural person can. Except enforce human rights, because they don't have any
This wasn't about enforcing human rights, this was about making use of a right to freely express ones mind.
So, in Thyerata, everything a corporation puts out in media (be it spoken, written, physically or digitally) has to be brought as a personal outing of the director, or the owner, or one (and only one) member from the management board. A corporation has no right to state on their website that they give a 5-year warranty on their products, but only one of the aforementioned persons could place a statement "I, A.C. Meritt-Anderson, founder and CEO of ACME & Sons Ltd. Inc, give a 5-year warranty on all the products that our corporation produces. And then, when one of the produced anvils fails within the warranty period, Mr. Meritt-Anderson will be personally accountable? ...because the statement was his, not the corporation's.
How do you get anyone to start a business then?

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8275
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:43 pm

Wizards.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads