NATION

PASSWORD

[Submit] Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

[Submit] Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism

Postby Refuge Isle » Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:52 pm

Greetings.

Months ago, I authored a repeal of GAR#501, Wartime Journalism Protection Act, and campaigned that it should be repealed and replaced. At the time, the author of that target resolution appeared as though they would take up the task of replacing it. That fell through. Another prolific contributor to this chamber began work on a replacement, but that fell through as well.

As a result, I will take up the assignment to see that it is done, and done with quality.

Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press


The General Assembly,

Observing that, in times of unrest, a scrutinising media provides a safety net for civilians in conflict's path, not only by keeping them apprised of dangers, but by holding leaders accountable for what atrocities might otherwise be concealed,

Recognising that, while operating in close proximity to a conflict zone is perilous, a journalist's actions may be the only mechanism by which news of happenings may be returned to international authorities,

Aware that conflict journalists face dangers beyond battlefield hazards, including being specifically targeted for arrest, kidnapping, and murder by belligerent factions or even their own government,

Resolved that it falls to the World Assembly to establish specific provisions which protect these journalists, safeguard their vital function, and assist in providing reports of non-compliance with international law,

May it be enacted that this chamber:

  1. Defines within this resolution:
    1. a "conflict zone" as a battlefield, combat area, or zone where military-grade equipment is deployed to defeat, rout, or suppress opposing forces.
    2. a "conflict journalist" as a reporter or a reporter's technical assistant, operating independent of any belligerent faction, and employed in providing journalism from an ongoing conflict zone or its immediate surrounding area.
    3. an "act of espionage" as the clandestine gathering, reporting, or delivery of information for the purposes of benefiting one or more belligerent factions, except to uphold international law.
    4. an "act of warfare" to be any of the following:
      1. The capturing or killing of combatants.
      2. The intentional damage or destruction of equipment or vehicles deployed to the conflict.
      3. The transportation of personnel or supplies for a party of the conflict.
  2. Declares that conflict journalists:
    1. are classified as civilian non-combatants of a protected status.
    2. are permitted to carry out any journalism that is not an act of espionage from or near a conflict zone.
    3. are prohibited from carrying, operating, or transporting weaponry in a conflict zone.
    4. are prohibited from hiring or otherwise soliciting the services of armed escorts and mercenaries.
    5. are prohibited from accessing military facilities, except when invited by the owner or controller of the facility.
  3. Prohibits member nations from:
    1. disallowing conflict journalists access to a conflict zone and freedom of movement within it.
    2. undertaking retaliatory action towards conflict journalists in response to unfavourable press coverage, or fear thereof.
    3. detaining conflict journalists solely to limit their access to the conflict zone, or to delay their reporting.
  4. Establishes that the kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target shall be illegal and considered a war crime.
  5. Clarifies that a conflict journalist who commits an act of espionage or proactively engages in an act of warfare will be considered a hostile combatant, exempt from the protections of this resolution, and unable to be considered a civilian in the conflict.


Safety and Integrity of Conflict Journalism
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity |Area of Effect: Free Press


The General Assembly;

Observing that, in times of unrest, a scrutinising media provides a safety net for civilians in conflict's path, not only by keeping them apprised of dangers, but by holding leaders accountable for what atrocities might otherwise be concealed,

Recognising that, while operating in close proximity to a conflict zone is perilous, a journalist's actions may be the only mechanism by which news of happenings may be returned to international authorities,

Aware of the dangers that conflict journalists face, beyond battlefield hazards, including being specifically targeted for arrest, kidnapping, and murder by belligerent factions or even their own government,

Resolved that it falls to the World Assembly to establish specific provisions which protect these journalists, safeguard their vital function, and assist in providing reports of non-compliance with international law.

May it be enacted that this chamber:

  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution's clarity:
    1. a "conflict zone" as a battlefield, combat area, or zone where military equipment is employed to defeat, rout, or suppress opposing forces.
    2. a "conflict journalist" as a reporter or a reporter's technical assistant, operating independent of any belligerent faction, and employed in providing journalism from an ongoing conflict zone or its surrounding area.
    3. an "act of espionage" to mean reporting which is done under false pretences for purposes of benefiting one or more belligerent factions, except to uphold international law.
    4. an "act of warfare" to mean capturing or killing of combatants, the intentional damaging or destruction of equipment and vehicles engaged in the conflict, or the transportation of personnel or supplies for a party of the conflict.
  2. Declares that conflict journalists:
    1. are classified as civilian non-combatants, afforded the special protections of this resolution.
    2. are permitted to carry out any journalism that is not an act of espionage from or near a conflict zone.
    3. reserve the right to carry defensive weaponry, and protect themselves should they come under attack.
    4. are prohibited from accessing military facilities, except when invited by the owner or controller of the facility.
  3. Prohibits member nations from:
    1. disallowing conflict journalists access to a conflict zone and freedom of movement within it.
    2. undertaking retaliatory action towards conflict journalists in response to unfavourable press coverage, or fear thereof.
    3. detaining conflict journalists solely to limit their access to the conflict zone.
  4. Establishes that the deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target shall be illegal and considered a war crime.
  5. Clarifies that any conflict journalist who proactively engages in an act of warfare or act of espionage will be considered a "hostile combatant", exempt from the protections of this resolution, and unable to be considered a civilian in the conflict.


Some Notes:

Research seems to indicate that one area of protection that's most lacking, IRL, regards journalists reporting wars and turmoil from inside their own country. Things like civil wars or violent protests, things that may not necessarily be called a "war" by the local government for legal convenience, but where reporting may provide the same substantive benefits to the affected population. For this reason, it's best to base this resolution not around war, itself, but on conflicts that function like them.

The phrase "conflict journalism" seems best defined by the use of military equipment, since civil wars will also obviously be using that. Some of the massive protests observable in recent times have also been met with deployment of military-like equipment. If this causes nations to alter what equipment is being deployed, that would certainly be an improvement.

Conflict journalists are intended to be observers of the conflict and not direct actors in it. Therefore, there are clearly laid out expectations for when one no longer enjoys the rights of a protected-status-civilian, and becomes a combatant instead. The draft is both mindful of journalists who are fired upon not being coerced into losing their protections, while also not being able to work on behalf of a belligerent under the shielding of this text.

A journalist that dies as a result of the hazards in an active war zone is of no concern to me, for they have the independent agency to choose this line of work, knowing what perils are involved. There is no need to restrict their consent to risk any more than there is to restrict someone becoming a soldier solely for its similarly inherent dangers. I understand the complaints about this concern from the previous two attempts to legislate on this topic, but I will not entertain them in this thread. Consequently, nations may not restrict a journalist's ability to traverse the battlefield at their own expense.

In a complimentary check, journalists themselves, are not permitted to enter military facilities uninvited, as their presence could hinder military efforts in ways that would ordinarily not reclassify them as combatants. The contents of military facilities also contain little information that would not trigger the acts of espionage check, as well. So it is naturally restricted. As of the last major update to this proposal, journalists are unable from carrying weaponry into the conflict zone, as it can make it difficult to determine whether they are a combatant. Research indicates that journalists who are restricted in this way may elect to hire armed escorts to transport and defend them, making them far more likely to be confused as combatants or end up becoming inadvertent targets. This has been restricted explicitly as well.

Finally, of note, the specific targetting of journalists for military strike will be considered a war crime. Deliberately using violence against civilians is already considered a war crime, per GAR#317 Wartime Looting and Pillage, but it is worth doubling down, in my opinion. Journalists who would be specifically brutalised, assassinated, and bombed are not targetted because they are civilians, but because they are journalists. So long as we uphold that war journalism provides a vital benefit to civilians in war, it should follow that we also find reprehensible the violent efforts to end that function.
Last edited by Refuge Isle on Sun May 09, 2021 12:48 am, edited 32 times in total.

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 329
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:57 pm

I am genuinely curious how exactly one judges one an act of espionage and, more to the point, who the final arbiter of whether an act constitutes an "act of espionage" is.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish
The Castellian WA Delegation

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:09 pm

Boston Castle wrote:I am genuinely curious how exactly one judges one an act of espionage and, more to the point, who the final arbiter of whether an act constitutes an "act of espionage" is.

The World Assembly Compliance Commission =)

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:39 pm

I've been a bit swamped with work lately, but here's a bump of this thread for any other comments on this proposal's premise or content.

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:57 pm

I've made some minor adjustments regarding sentence construction following private feedback from colleagues in TSP and Refugia.

Bordering on three weeks of this thread being up without feedback. Since this proposal is clearly uncontroversial, if it remains without adjustment at this time next week, I will likely move to last call.

User avatar
North Supreria
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby North Supreria » Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:14 am

Refuge Isle wrote:[2c] reserve the right to carry defensive weaponry, and protect themselves should they come under attack.


North Supreria is concerned about this sentence in the proposal. We wonder what exactly is meant by defensive weaponry. North Supreria is concerned that the carrying of weapons by journalists will have an escalating effect and will only worsen situations. Journalists are more likely to be seen as spies and enemies. A journalist has to perform unbiased and neutral work and that is then at stake. If by defensive weaponry are meant bulletproof vests, North Supreria thinks that is a good plan, but perhaps this should be defined in the proposal.

Refuge Isle wrote:[5]Clarifies that a reporter who commits an act of espionage or proactively engages in an act of warfare will be considered a hostile combatant, exempt from the protections of this resolution, and unable to be considered a civilian in the conflict.


In this sentence, the word "reporter" is used, with the whole proposal referring to "conflict journalist".
Last edited by North Supreria on Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
North Supreria "United and Strong"
Ambassador Paterson, representative of North Supreria
Delegate of The Red and Green Alliance

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:39 am

North Supreria wrote:North Supreria is concerned about this sentence in the proposal. We wonder what exactly is meant by defensive weaponry. North Supreria is concerned that the carrying of weapons by journalists will have an escalating effect and will only worsen situations. Journalists are more likely to be seen as spies and enemies. A journalist has to perform unbiased and neutral work and that is then at stake. If by defensive weaponry are meant bulletproof vests, North Supreria thinks that is a good plan, but perhaps this should be defined in the proposal.

Defensive weaponry refers to weaponry which is used for self-protection. A definition is not required when a literal reading of the dictionary provides the intended meaning. A bullet-proof vest isn't going to do you much good if your trapped camera van get gunned down by militants who target you for being journalists reporting things they don't want you to see. Journalism is on the line, then, too.

In this proposal, a journalist has the right to carry weaponry as well as the right to use that weaponry if, and only if, they are attacked. The ability to do so was one of the grounds for the last resolution's repeal. Research suggests that journalists who are not allowed to carry weaponry for self-protection will still seek out that protection by hiring mercenaries or escorts who are armed to the teeth, do not qualify for protection from a resolution like this, and add substantial confusion to the conflict. Evidence indicates that this is the more preferential route, as the actions of journalists and use of their weaponry can be adequately restrained.

North Supreria wrote:In this sentence, the word "reporter" is used, with the whole proposal referring to "conflict journalist".

Makes sense. Edited.

User avatar
North Supreria
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby North Supreria » Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:51 pm

Refuge Isle wrote:Defensive weaponry refers to weaponry which is used for self-protection. A definition is not required when a literal reading of the dictionary provides the intended meaning. A bullet-proof vest isn't going to do you much good if your trapped camera van get gunned down by militants who target you for being journalists reporting things they don't want you to see. Journalism is on the line, then, too.

In this proposal, a journalist has the right to carry weaponry as well as the right to use that weaponry if, and only if, they are attacked. The ability to do so was one of the grounds for the last resolution's repeal. Research suggests that journalists who are not allowed to carry weaponry for self-protection will still seek out that protection by hiring mercenaries or escorts who are armed to the teeth, do not qualify for protection from a resolution like this, and add substantial confusion to the conflict. Evidence indicates that this is the more preferential route, as the actions of journalists and use of their weaponry can be adequately restrained.


North Supreria wants to thank the ambassador of Refuge Isle for the explanation. The confusion that existed for us was mainly about whether firearms would also fall under defensive weaponry, the dictionary does not provide a clear answer on this. Then it is now also clear to North Supreria what is meant. We are still convinced that carrying a weapon has an escalating effect and does not help conflict journalists if they are attacked (or overwhelmed) by militants. Countries should simply respect international law and leave conflict journalists alone, otherwise the countries concerned should be punished.

North Supreria wishes the ambassador of Refuge Isle the best of luck on submitting the proposal and the possible vote that follows!
North Supreria "United and Strong"
Ambassador Paterson, representative of North Supreria
Delegate of The Red and Green Alliance

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:14 am

North Supreria wrote:
North Supreria wants to thank the ambassador of Refuge Isle for the explanation. The confusion that existed for us was mainly about whether firearms would also fall under defensive weaponry, the dictionary does not provide a clear answer on this. Then it is now also clear to North Supreria what is meant. We are still convinced that carrying a weapon has an escalating effect and does not help conflict journalists if they are attacked (or overwhelmed) by militants. Countries should simply respect international law and leave conflict journalists alone, otherwise the countries concerned should be punished.

North Supreria wishes the ambassador of Refuge Isle the best of luck on submitting the proposal and the possible vote that follows!

"Ambassador, you have to remember a large number of countries are not members of the WA. The WA's laws can only apply to member nations and non-member nation have no obligation to respect WA laws."
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
North Supreria
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby North Supreria » Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:29 am

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, you have to remember a large number of countries are not members of the WA. The WA's laws can only apply to member nations and non-member nation have no obligation to respect WA laws."


North Supreria is aware that this is the case and emphasizes once again that carrying a weapon (especially) in non-member nations, will lead to an escalating effect. Non-member nations that want to silence and / or attack conflict journalists will, sadly, not let themselves be stopped by defensive weapons carried by conflict journalists.
Last edited by North Supreria on Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
North Supreria "United and Strong"
Ambassador Paterson, representative of North Supreria
Delegate of The Red and Green Alliance

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:16 am

North Supreria wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, you have to remember a large number of countries are not members of the WA. The WA's laws can only apply to member nations and non-member nation have no obligation to respect WA laws."


North Supreria is aware that this is the case and emphasizes once again that carrying a weapon (especially) in non-member nations, will lead to an escalating effect. Non-member nations that want to silence and / or attack conflict journalists will, sadly, not let themselves be stopped by defensive weapons carried by conflict journalists.

"This was in response to your 'nations should just obey the law or be punished.' We have no opinions either way regarding the escalating effect of carrying defensive weaponry, though it would be preferable to not have journalists carrying military grade weaponry in the name of "defense"."
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:50 pm

IC, all:
Ardiveds wrote:
North Supreria wrote:
North Supreria is aware that this is the case and emphasizes once again that carrying a weapon (especially) in non-member nations, will lead to an escalating effect. Non-member nations that want to silence and / or attack conflict journalists will, sadly, not let themselves be stopped by defensive weapons carried by conflict journalists.

"This was in response to your 'nations should just obey the law or be punished.' We have no opinions either way regarding the escalating effect of carrying defensive weaponry, though it would be preferable to not have journalists carrying military grade weaponry in the name of "defense"."

Conflict journalists are prohibited from carrying out any action that is considered an act of warfare. Your sceptical use of the word "defence" here indicates that you somehow believe that there may be alternative uses for the equipment permitted by law. This is not the case.

North Supreria wrote:North Supreria is aware that this is the case and emphasizes once again that carrying a weapon (especially) in non-member nations, will lead to an escalating effect. Non-member nations that want to silence and / or attack conflict journalists will, sadly, not let themselves be stopped by defensive weapons carried by conflict journalists.

The representative from Ardiveds is correct in that, if there are two nations at war and one is a WA member and the other is not, the WA member is obliged to follow WA rules. The non-WA member has no such obligation. In that conflict, presumably we would still like the journalist to report on happenings there, so it is prudent to allow the journalist self-protection due to the heightened dangers of dealing with non-WA nations/factions in war. Journalists will not be protected from being hit by bombs, but they may be protected from rogue militants.

In any event, I sympathise with the concerns of escalation. There should be a way for journalists to protect themselves in a nook of a mountain near the battlefield without being the only ones allowed to have weapons in a DMZ. I have amended my draft to this end, and the ability to carry weaponry is now subject to that caveat. I have also clarified that the use of weaponry should only be used when no other feasible options are available.

User avatar
North Supreria
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby North Supreria » Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:48 pm

Refuge Isle wrote:In any event, I sympathise with the concerns of escalation. There should be a way for journalists to protect themselves in a nook of a mountain near the battlefield without being the only ones allowed to have weapons in a DMZ. I have amended my draft to this end, and the ability to carry weaponry is now subject to that caveat. I have also clarified that the use of weaponry should only be used when no other feasible options are available.


North Supreria wants to thank the ambassador of Refuge Isle for the explanation and adjustments to the proposal. North Supreria recognizes that it will always be a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, we want conflict journalists to be able to do their work neutrally and without interference from countries and that everyone respects this, but that is an ideal that cannot be achieved. On the other hand, we want conflict journalists to work safely and protect these people with defensive weapons, but you don't want to escalate the situation, which might get journalists into even more trouble. There is never an ideal solution, but North Supreria welcomes the adjustments and the more careful wording in the proposal to make it as clear as possible.

North Supreria still has a lot of trouble with the idea that conflict journalists should be allowed to carry weapons, but we are also realistic. We can agree more with the new proposal. North Supreria would like to wish the ambassador of Refuge Isle the best of luck with the proposal, submission and possible vote. The delegation from The Red and Green Alliance will approve the proposal anyway, bringing it at least one step closer to the quorum that needs to be reached.
Last edited by North Supreria on Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
North Supreria "United and Strong"
Ambassador Paterson, representative of North Supreria
Delegate of The Red and Green Alliance

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:40 pm

Another week without controversy or substantive edit.

Last call.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8180
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:47 pm

Refuge Isle wrote:
  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution's clarity:

my proposed edits in blue :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

I STAND WITH PAM DUNCAN-GLANCY

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 329
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:02 am

"We are perfectly content with this as is, Ambassador. Best of luck with the next steps."
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish
The Castellian WA Delegation

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8180
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:02 am

2 hours ago: The Fanciful Tales of Refuge Isle withdrew a proposal from the WA General Assembly titled "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism".

The proposal had reached quorum and was due to be voted on between the major updates of Saturday 8th May and Tuesday 12th May (assuming that Big Boyz' proposal remained legal). I note the distinct absence of any provisions relating to the carriage of weapons in the current draft.
Last edited by Tinhampton on Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

I STAND WITH PAM DUNCAN-GLANCY

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:23 am

Tinhampton wrote:I note the distinct absence of any provisions relating to the carriage of weapons in the current draft.

What I've researched suggests that journalists who feel like they need protection to traverse an area will hire armed escorts if they cannot defend themselves. Those escorts wouldn't have the legal protection that journalists would have, and are highly prone to being confusable with actual combatants. They're universally seen as a net-negative for the battlefield. I think I mentioned this in the OP. So, one solution is to have enough legal protections in place so that a journalist does not require any sort of actual armament. That's what's happening. Another is to do that and allow defensive weaponry for reporting on such groups that are not bound by WA law, since journalists' weapon use can be reigned in and escorts cannot, really. This has proven to be more of a dealbreaker than I anticipated.

So, in this case, it will be necessary to both restrict journalists' ability to carry weaponry, and restrict their ability to hire armed escorts as a classic fallback.
Last edited by Refuge Isle on Fri May 07, 2021 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 684
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Fri May 07, 2021 7:04 pm

Weaponry removed. Last call again.

I presume that the rest of the draft is just as uncontroversial as before and my snail-pace continues to satisfy.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Doggonia and Pupponia

Advertisement

Remove ads