[Re-edited draft 3] - Prevention of Necrophilia

[Simone Republic]

Both necrophilia pornography and sexual abuse of animals have been removed, the first one due to AI deepfake issues (plus Twilight) and the second due to Magecastle's ban on sexual abuse of animals.

Note that NSUN did have a similar resolution:
viewtopic.php?p=20011994#p20011994

A GHR has been re-filed to clear this for PG-13 content just in case.

Category: Moral decency/mild

(This resolution would have the effect of reducing civic freedoms, vs civil rights, so it goes in the negative category).

Re-edited draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting standing resolutions including GA240, Sexual Anatomy Guarantees;

Anxious that engaging in sex acts with the dead body (hereafter, "corpse") of a sapient individual are of significant concerns to some WA states on many issues, including whether consent has been given (and the ability to give consent prior to death), the dignity of the deceased and the potential spread of diseases;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Prohibition.
   
   1. An inhabitant is defined as any sapient individual who is physically in a WA state, or under the jurisdiction of a WA state.
   2. An inhabitant that willfully, and knowingly, engages in a sex act with a corpse of any sapient species (hereafter, "necrophilia") commits an offence.
   3. An inhabitant that dismembers a corpse for the purpose of facilitating the act defined in sub-clause (1)(a) commits an offence.
   4. An inhabitant that abets or assists in the acts stated in sub-clauses (1)(a) and (1)(b) commits an offence.
2. Interpretation.
   
   1. The definition of a corpse excludes the death of a participant during a sex act, which shall be investigated in accordance with established procedures by coroners or other officers of that WA state.
   2. The interpretation of this resolution including all terms used herein, and any penalties for offences in clause (1), are the responsibilities of that WA state, subject to due process of law.

Char count: 1,345

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I, on behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, have full support for a prohibition of necrophilia and the wanton distribution of material thereof.”

(OOC: The past tense of “shed” is simply “shed”, so that should be rectified in 1b. Both 2a and 2b have some discordance between the plurality of the “inhabitants” and the singularity of “is deemed” and “is prohibited”, respectively. For 2a, alteration from “is deemed” to “are deemed” fixed this. For 2b, the current wording seems to imply prohibition of the inhabitants themselves, so I recommend replacement of the present wording with that of 2a, as follows: “…except with the authorisation of a component authority, are deemed to have committed an offence;”.)

[Waffia]

Instead of cannibalism, let's just talk about necrophilia.

Exciting!

"part of the body" as any part of (or all of) the body of the said sapient species, excluding anything discharged or shedded as a result of the usual biological processes of the said sapient species;Requires, subject to extant WA resolutions and regardless of whether consent has been sought or given by any inhabitant involved:

• Why restrict this to sapient species?
• "of the said sapient species" -- Where did you say sapient species? I think this weirdly relies on definition 1(a).
• "of the said sapient" -> "of said sapient"
• I think the "Requires [...] involved" part shouldn't be there.

Any inhabitants found to have sex with a dead body (or any part of the dead body) of another sapient species is deemed to have committed an offence;

• Only if it's with someone from a different sapient species?
• Sex is not the same as intercourse (unless you define otherwise). Is intense hugging sex? How intense does it have to be? This forum is not the right place to go into detail, but your current definition is too broad for the supposed goal of the proposal.
• What if someone dies during (but not as a result of) consensual sex? What if the partner genuinely does not notice the other's death for several minutes?

Any inhabitants found to distribute any video or images of the aforesaid act, or any pornography featuring the death of any inhabitants during sex, for any purposes except with the authorization of a competent authority, is hereby prohibited;

• "Any inhabitants found to distribute [material] is hereby prohibited". Why are you prohibiting inhabitants?
• Outlawing this does not follow the proposal's stated goal of reducing "risks on health, hygiene, and transmission of diseases". You will have to argue why this clause is necessary, as the production of the material is already illegal by your previous clause.
• Does this include fictional videos and images, e.g. paintings, movies, etc.?
• Is a movie featuring a fictional recreation of a famous historical case of necrophilia illegal? Or, on the other end of the spectrum, is it legal to photograph an act of necrophilia, and then trace the image and distribute that?

The aforesaid acts (a) and (b) are also offences at the WA Headquarters;

• Why?

The competent authorit(ies) of the relevant WA state, in accordance with local laws, shall have jurisdiction and for adjudicating on any matters concerning this resolution, and for imposing any penalties thereof. In case of violations inside the WA Headquarters, the Independent Adjudicative Office is deemed to be the aforesaid competent authority.

• "authorit(ies)" -- Means "authorit or authorities". What is an authorit?
• "jurisdiction and for adjudicating" -> "jurisdiction for adjudicating" (not sure)

[Simone Republic]

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Anxious that the act of necrophilia bring substantial risks to those involved, such as, merely as examples, risks on health, hygiene, and transmission of diseases;

Alarmed by the potentially devastating consequences of such acts, especially for WA states with less advanced medical care facilities or spread of diseases that affect one type of sapient species but not another;

Thus desiring a ban on such acts across all WA states; hereby

1. Defines:
   
   1. "inhabitant" as any sapient species subject to the jurisdiction of a WA state at the time such acts take place;
   2. "part of the body" as any part of (or all of) the body of the said sapient species, excluding anything discharged or shedded as a result of the usual biological processes of the said sapient species;Requires, subject to extant WA resolutions and regardless of whether consent has been sought or given by any inhabitant involved:
2. Requires:
   
   
   1. Any inhabitants found to have sex with a dead body (or any part of the dead body) of another sapient species is deemed to have committed an offence;
   2. Any inhabitants found to distribute any video or images of the aforesaid act, or any pornography featuring the death of any inhabitants during sex, for any purposes except with the authorization of a competent authority, is hereby prohibited;
   3. The aforesaid acts (a) and (b) are also offences at the WA Headquarters;
   4. The competent authorit(ies) of the relevant WA state, in accordance with local laws, shall have jurisdiction and for adjudicating on any matters concerning this resolution, and for imposing any penalties thereof. In case of violations inside the WA Headquarters, the Independent Adjudicative Office is deemed to be the aforesaid competent authority.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I, on behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, have full support for a prohibition of necrophilia and the wanton distribution of material thereof.”

Well, couldn't ban cannibalism so trying to ban something more disgusting instead.

(OOC: The past tense of “shed” is simply “shed”, so that should be rectified in 1b. Both 2a and 2b have some discordance between the plurality of the “inhabitants” and the singularity of “is deemed” and “is prohibited”, respectively. For 2a, alteration from “is deemed” to “are deemed” fixed this. For 2b, the current wording seems to imply prohibition of the inhabitants themselves, so I recommend replacement of the present wording with that of 2a, as follows: “…except with the authorisation of a component authority, are deemed to have committed an offence;”.)

Changed

Instead of cannibalism, let's just talk about necrophilia.

Exciting!

I've added snuff films.

"part of the body" as any part of (or all of) the body of the said sapient species, excluding anything discharged or shedded as a result of the usual biological processes of the said sapient species;Requires, subject to extant WA resolutions and regardless of whether consent has been sought or given by any inhabitant involved:

This has been heavily edited to also involve any species. So a dead dog is also a no. You can eat a dead dog but not have sex with it.

[*] Only if it's with someone from a different sapient species?
[*] Sex is not the same as intercourse (unless you define otherwise). Is intense hugging sex? How intense does it have to be? This forum is not the right place to go into detail, but your current definition is too broad for the supposed goal of the proposal.

I plan to simply state the definition of sex is as defined by the competent authorities of a WA state depending on species, both because I don't want to get speciest and because I am skidding close to PG-13 territory here.

[*] What if someone dies during (but not as a result of) consensual sex? What if the partner genuinely does not notice the other's death for several minutes?[/list]

If someone dies of a heart attack during sex, it should be pretty noticeable I'd assume.

• "Any inhabitants found to distribute [material] is hereby prohibited". Why are you prohibiting inhabitants?
• Outlawing this does not follow the proposal's stated goal of reducing "risks on health, hygiene, and transmission of diseases". You will have to argue why this clause is necessary, as the production of the material is already illegal by your previous clause.
• Does this include fictional videos and images, e.g. paintings, movies, etc.?
• Is a movie featuring a fictional recreation of a famous historical case of necrophilia illegal? Or, on the other end of the spectrum, is it legal to photograph an act of necrophilia, and then trace the image and distribute that?

• Why?

• "authorit(ies)" -- Means "authorit or authorities". What is an authorit?
• "jurisdiction and for adjudicating" -> "jurisdiction for adjudicating" (not sure)

[/quote]

I need to think about the definition on snuff films in more detail and will revise later.

[Kenmoria]

[*] What if someone dies during (but not as a result of) consensual sex? What if the partner genuinely does not notice the other's death for several minutes?[/list]

If someone dies of a heart attack during sex, it should be pretty noticeable I'd assume.

(OOC: Though unlikely, this could happen. It’s not termed “la petite mort” without reason. Consider adding “intentionally” to 2a, and 2b as well now that I come to think if it.)

[The Pacific Northwest]

"inhabitant" as any sapient species subject to the jurisdiction of a WA state at the time such acts take place;
"part of the body" as any part of (or all of) the body of the said sapient species, excluding anything discharged or shedded shed as a result of the usual biological processes of the said sapient species;

This reads to me as only applying to members of your own species, as opposed to all sapient species, and I feel like it should also apply to all other sapient species (and non sapient species actually).

And the past tense of shed is just shed. I usually assume spelling differences like that are just a difference between American spellings and other countries, but I looked this one up and it looks like it's not a generally accepted word unless it's specifically referring to depositing a vehicle into a shed.

Any inhabitants found to distribute any video or images of the aforesaid act, or any pornography featuring the death of any inhabitants during sex, for any purposes except with the authorization of a competent authority, is hereby prohibited;

Prohibited from what? The inhabitants have already been found to have done it, they cannot be prohibited from doing what they've already done. I guess you could prohibit them from doing it again, but ideally I think you'd want to prohibit it before they're found to have done it. I think that sentence could do with a bit of rephrasing lol.

Otherwise, I didn't see anything that really stood out to me. I don't have any objections to this in concept.

[Simone Republic]

If someone dies of a heart attack during sex, it should be pretty noticeable I'd assume.
(OOC: Though unlikely, this could happen. It’s not termed “la petite mort” without reason. Consider adding “intentionally” to 2a, and 2b as well now that I come to think if it.)

I have a choice reply for that comment but I'd leave that for the Diogenes Club, where you can usually find me anyway.

Any inhabitants found to distribute any video or images of the aforesaid act, or any pornography featuring the death of any inhabitants during sex, for any purposes except with the authorization of a competent authority, is hereby prohibited;

Prohibited from what? The inhabitants have already been found to have done it, they cannot be prohibited from doing what they've already done. I guess you could prohibit them from doing it again, but ideally I think you'd want to prohibit it before they're found to have done it. I think that sentence could do with a bit of rephrasing lol.

Otherwise, I didn't see anything that really stood out to me. I don't have any objections to this in concept.

It's been rephrased now that anyone distributing media of the said act commits an offence. Also that any species is now an offence too. So no sex with a dog, but eating one is OK.

And the past tense of shed is just shed. I usually assume spelling differences like that are just a difference between American spellings and other countries, but I looked this one up and it looks like it's not a generally accepted word unless it's specifically referring to depositing a vehicle into a shed.

I removed the word "shed" in favour of "separated" as previously there were discussions in the cannibalism debate over whether eating body hair constitutes cannibalism, but I think anything excreted or separated as part of the usual biological process should be OK.

"Sex" is changed to "engage in a sexual activity" deliberately undefined - let the courts (or IAO) decide for themselves so that I don't have to be accused of being speciest.

2(b) is also rephased to assume RNT on the part of the competent authority, and they can also fight out what constitutes sex. Also 2(b) now includes "willfully and knowingly" so if someone inserts a snuff film in the middle of The Ambis singing "All we want for Christmas is you" on WhoTube, and the white bear redistributes it without knowing that the film has been edited, that's not an offence.

Also this resolution specifically applies to the WA Headquarters, I don't want sex with dead bodies near the statue of Catherine Gratwick in WA Headquarters.

[Waffia]

Very nice redraft, I think this addresses all of my previously raised concerns. I have a few minor corrections that I propose, highlighted. (strike = remove, bold = add, [Brackets] is comment.)

Additionally, one more concern. You added "willfully, and knowingly" to sub-clauses (a) and (b). I generally agree with that addition. However, I think this does not forbid someone from deceiving someone else into having sex with a dead body. Take a nation where brothels are legal, a client is told that their partner will play dead, but turns out they are actually dead without the client knowing. The brother operator is apparently not doing anything illegal (I think? Maybe covered by other resolutions?). In other cases, where the client is actually aware, they could lie and say they were unaware, and claim the brother operator deceived them.

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Anxious that the act of engaging in sexual activities with dead bodies brings substantial risks to those involved, such as risks on to health, hygiene, and transmission of diseases;

Alarmed by the potential consequences of such acts, especially for WA states with less advanced medical care facilities or and the spread of diseases that affect one type of sapient species but not another;

Horrified by attempts to capture images of such acts, especially for commercial purposes; [You do not return to the "commercial purposes" in the remainder of the resolution. I also think this motivation is a bit weak, but I'm not opposed.]

Thus desiring a ban on such acts across all WA states; hereby

1. Defines [for the sake of this resolution?]:
   
   1. "authority" means the to mean one or more designated competent authorities, whether at a local or national level, for handling matters related to this resolution in each WA state, for any activities to that have taken place within the jurisdiction of the said WA state, subject to that WA state's laws, and, in the case of WA offices, the Independent Adjudicative Office;
      
   2. "inhabitant" to mean any member of a sapient species subject to the jurisdiction of a WA state at the time such acts [What acts?] take place;
      
   3. "media" to mean any form of audio-visual communications technologies that can be seen, heard, or received or comprehended by inhabitants, such as graphics, recordings, songs, speeches, videos, and virtual reality presentations;
      
   4. "part of the body" as any part of (or all of) the body of any species inhabitant, excluding anything discharged or separated as a result of the usual biological process(es) of the said species inhabitant;
      
   5. "WA offices" to mean the WA Headquarters or any other offices of the WA and that of its agencies, bodies and organs;
2. Requires: [Whom does the WA require to do these things? Clarify that this targets member nations.]
   
   
   1. Any inhabitants found to have willfully, and knowingly, engaged in a sexual activity with a dead body (or any part of the dead body) of any species other inhabitant are deemed to have committed an offence;
      
   2. Any inhabitants found to have willfully, and knowingly, distributed media of the aforesaid act defined in sub-clause (a) (sometimes known as "snuff films" [Incorrect, snuff is not (necessarily) a recording of necrophilia; snuff is murder recorded with commercial intent.]), except with the explicit authorization of an authority for a legitimate purpose and to such inhabitants that the said authority deems strictly necessary, are deemed to have committed an offence;
      
   3. The aforesaid acts (a) and (b) are also offences at WA offices;
      
   4. The death of a participant in the aforesaid sexual activity during the said activity due to factors beyond the reasonable control of other participants in the said activity shall be deemed a valid defense for the purpose of sub-clauses (a) to (c);
      
   5. The relevant authority shall have jurisdiction and for adjudicating on any matters concerning this resolution, and for imposing any penalties that such authorities may determine to be appropriate, subject to due process.
3. Clarifies specifically that the term "engage in a sexual activity" is to be interpreted by the relevant authority, and thus that this definition may vary between jurisdictions and/or between different species.

Char count: 2,956

[Simone Republic]

Very nice redraft, I think this addresses all of my previously raised concerns. I have a few minor corrections that I propose, highlighted. (strike = remove, bold = add, [Brackets] is comment.)

I changed the wording but not totally according to your changes. I added a definition, "species" to catch cases where an inhabitant of a sapient species has sex with a non-sapient species (say a human having sex with a dead sheep). The "sapient species" wording follows WA convention.

The definition of snuff films has been removed so the title is now just "Don't have sex with a corpse".

There's actually a bit of vagueness of over whether territorial jurisdiction - it is catching inhabitants "if they are subject to" the jurisdiction of a WA state, not necessarily that they are inside a WA state itself, so it's roughly the same logic with pedophilia laws - any citizen of (say Australia) travelling have sex with children below a certain age overseas commits an offence as long as the person is a citizen.

[Waffia]

I changed the wording but not totally according to your changes. I added a definition, "species" to catch cases where an inhabitant of a sapient species has sex with a non-sapient species (say a human having sex with a dead sheep). The "sapient species" wording follows WA convention.

The definition of snuff films has been removed so the title is now just "Don't have sex with a corpse".

There's actually a bit of vagueness of over whether territorial jurisdiction - it is catching inhabitants "if they are subject to" the jurisdiction of a WA state, not necessarily that they are inside a WA state itself, so it's roughly the same logic with pedophilia laws - any citizen of (say Australia) travelling have sex with children below a certain age overseas commits an offence as long as the person is a citizen.

Neato. If I ever repeat a previous point that you decided not to include, I'm not being passive-aggressive, I probably just forgot I already mentioned it.

However, I still think you usage of "species" is incorrect. Unlike other resolutions (cf. [1], [2], [3]), you use "species" when referring to an individual, even though a species is an entire group of beings. You have defined "inhabitant" to mean an entire species, so Article 2(b) apparently incriminates an entire species if one of them does necrophilia. I think using "sapient being" or "member of a sapient species" would fix that, and would make Article 1(e) redundant so it can be removed.

Finally, what do you think of my earlier example? Do you think this resolution has place to make the selling of (access to) dead bodies for the purposes sex illegal?

[Simone Republic]

I changed the wording but not totally according to your changes. I added a definition, "species" to catch cases where an inhabitant of a sapient species has sex with a non-sapient species (say a human having sex with a dead sheep). The "sapient species" wording follows WA convention.

The definition of snuff films has been removed so the title is now just "Don't have sex with a corpse".

There's actually a bit of vagueness of over whether territorial jurisdiction - it is catching inhabitants "if they are subject to" the jurisdiction of a WA state, not necessarily that they are inside a WA state itself, so it's roughly the same logic with pedophilia laws - any citizen of (say Australia) travelling have sex with children below a certain age overseas commits an offence as long as the person is a citizen.

Neato. If I ever repeat a previous point that you decided not to include, I'm not being passive-aggressive, I probably just forgot I already mentioned it.

However, I still think you usage of "species" is incorrect. Unlike other resolutions (cf. [1], [2], [3]), you use "species" when referring to an individual, even though a species is an entire group of beings. You have defined "inhabitant" to mean an entire species, so Article 2(b) apparently incriminates an entire species if one of them does necrophilia. I think using "sapient being" or "member of a sapient species" would fix that, and would make Article 1(e) redundant so it can be removed.

The split is deliberate - it's basically also preventing necrophilia between a sapient species and a non-sapient species. (So humans having sex with a dead dog is also not permitted). But I can change the wording to make it clearer.

Finally, what do you think of my earlier example? Do you think this resolution has place to make the selling of (access to) dead bodies for the purposes sex illegal?

I need to check all the free trade resolutions regarding organs, dead bodies etc., to double confirm I don't have violations. I don't particularly like using the "subject to extant (pre-existing) resolutions" qualifier.

If someone dies of a heart attack during sex, it should be pretty noticeable I'd assume.

(OOC: Though unlikely, this could happen. It’s not termed “la petite mort” without reason. Consider adding “intentionally” to 2a, and 2b as well now that I come to think if it.)[/quote]

If someone drops dead during sex, it's a bit unfortunate but, um, let me think about that as well. I'd spare you the choice reply I prepared if someone dies of a heart attack during sex.

[Waffia]

*snip*

The split is deliberate - it's basically also preventing necrophilia between a sapient species and a non-sapient species. (So humans having sex with a dead dog is also not permitted). But I can change the wording to make it clearer.

It took me some time to understand what you meant here, because your reply seemed totally disconnected to the point I tried to make.

I agree with you that you should not use the word "inhabitant" instead of "species" as I previously suggested, since that would exclude non-sapient species from those articles. However, I do think you should not use the word "species" the way you currently do, because "species" means an entire group of organisms instead of an individual, and as such it is incorrect to say "the body of any species". That's like saying "the body of any friend group": A "friend group" does not have a body, but the individual friends in that group do. Hence, I suggest replacing "species" with "member of a species" whenever you mean an individual.

But now that I think about it: "any member of a species" just means "any organism". That includes flowers. I don't think it should be illegal for sapients to have sex with flowers.

I need to check all the free trade resolutions regarding organs, dead bodies etc., to double confirm I don't have violations. I don't particularly like using the "subject to extant (pre-existing) resolutions" qualifier.

Oh yeah, that's a tough one :/

(OOC: Though unlikely, this could happen. It’s not termed “la petite mort” without reason. Consider adding “intentionally” to 2a, and 2b as well now that I come to think if it.)

If someone drops dead during sex, it's a bit unfortunate but, um, let me think about that as well. I'd spare you the choice reply I prepared if someone dies of a heart attack during sex.

owo

[The Ice States]

The aforesaid acts (a) and (b) are also offences at WA offices;

I would suggest changing this to "WA offices or any other location under direct World Assembly jurisdiction".

The death of a participant in the aforesaid sexual activity during the said activity due to factors beyond the reasonable control of other participants in the said activity shall be deemed a valid defense for the purpose of sub-clauses (a) to (c);

Instead of making it a defense, which implies that it would still be prosecuted, I would suggest saying "shall not be criminalised by sub-clauses (a) to (c)" or something along those lines, in place of everything after "in the said activity shall be...".

If these matters (especially the latter) are addressed, I have no real objection against this proposal.

[Simone Republic]

The aforesaid acts (a) and (b) are also offences at WA offices;

I would suggest changing this to "WA offices or any other location under direct World Assembly jurisdiction".

Amended the definition.

The death of a participant in the aforesaid sexual activity during the said activity due to factors beyond the reasonable control of other participants in the said activity shall be deemed a valid defense for the purpose of sub-clauses (a) to (c);

Instead of making it a defense, which implies that it would still be prosecuted, I would suggest saying "shall not be criminalised by sub-clauses (a) to (c)" or something along those lines, in place of everything after "in the said activity shall be...".

If these matters (especially the latter) are addressed, I have no real objection against this proposal.

"Shall be a valid and absolute defense against the offences stated in sub-clauses (a) to (c)."

Your wording would preclude (unintentionally or otherwise) criminalizing murdering your sex partner during sex.

[The Ice States]

"Shall be a valid and absolute defense against the offences stated in sub-clauses (a) to (c)."

That still does not address the issue. It should not be criminalised ab initio, instead of merely being a defense.

Your wording would preclude (unintentionally or otherwise) criminalizing murdering your sex partner during sex.

Only if your current wording includes that as part of the exception, not that it does.

[Simone Republic]

"Shall be a valid and absolute defense against the offences stated in sub-clauses (a) to (c)."

That still does not address the issue. It should not be criminalised ab initio, instead of merely being a defense.

An absolute defense means an automatic acquittal.

I'd fix the text later after all feedback has been gathered.

[The Ice States]

That still does not address the issue. It should not be criminalised ab initio, instead of merely being a defense.

An absolute defense means an automatic acquittal.

I haven't got round to revising the text yet.

Yes. The issue is that such acts will still be prosecuted, even if it results in an acquittal.

[Simone Republic]

That still does not address the issue. It should not be criminalised ab initio, instead of merely being a defense.

An absolute defense means an automatic acquittal.

I haven't got round to revising the text yet.

Yes. The issue is that such acts will still be prosecuted, even if it results in an acquittal.

Depends on your thinking of RNT. In most IRL situations, so far as I am aware, if the prosecution is going to result in an automatic acquittal, it is not going to be prosecuted at all simply because it is a waste of resources. Also I think to explicitly not criminalize it would make the wording more complex.

The bits on WAHQ have also been removed. Do whatever you want in the WAHQ, it's a lunatic asylum anyway.

Draft 2

Category: Moral decency/mild

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Anxious that the act of engaging in sexual activities with dead bodies bring substantial risks to those involved, such as risks to health and hygiene;

Alarmed by the potential consequences of such acts, especially for WA states with less advanced health care facilities and spread of diseases that affect one type of sapient species but not another;

Horrified by attempts to capture images of such acts;

Thus desiring a ban on such acts across all WA states; hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. "authority" to mean one or more designated competent authorities, whether at a local or national level, for handling matters related to this resolution in each WA state, for any activities to have taken place within the jurisdiction of the said WA state, subject to that WA state's laws, and, in the case of WA offices, the Independent Adjudicative Office;
      
   2. "inhabitant" to mean a member of any sapient species subject to the jurisdiction of a WA state at the time such acts take place;
      
   3. "media" to mean any form of audio-visual communications technologies that can be seen, heard, or received or comprehended by inhabitants, such as graphics, recordings, songs, speeches, videos, and virtual reality presentations;
      
   4. "part of the body" as any part of (or all of) the body of any species, excluding anything discharged or separated as a result of the usual biological process(es) of the said species;
      
   5. "species" to mean any species and not necessarily sapient unless the term "sapient species" is used;
      
   6. "WA offices" to mean the WA Headquarters or any other offices of the WA and the WA's agencies, bodies and organs, and any other location under direct World Assembly jurisdiction;
2. Requires:
   
   
   1. Any inhabitants found to have willfully, and knowingly, engaged in a sexual activity with a dead body (or any part of the dead body) of any species are deemed to have committed an offence by the relevant WA state;
      
   2. Any inhabitants found to have willfully, and knowingly, distributed media of the aforesaid act defined in sub-clause (a) except with the explicit authorization of an authority for a legitimate purpose and to such inhabitants that the said authority deems strictly necessary, are deemed to have committed an offence by the relevant WA state;
      
   3. The aforesaid acts (a) and (b) are also offences at WA offices;
      
   4. The death of a participant in the aforesaid sexual activity during the said activity due to factors beyond the reasonable control of other participants in the said activity shall be deemed a valid defense for the purpose of sub-clauses (a) to (c);
      
   5. The relevant authority shall have jurisdiction and for adjudicating on any matters concerning this resolution, and for imposing any penalties that such authorities may determine to be appropriate, subject to due process.
3. Clarifies specifically that the term "engage in a sexual activity" is to be interpreted by the relevant authority, and thus that this definition may vary between jurisdictions and/or between different species.

Char count: 2,956

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The very broad definition of ‘media’ worries me, particularly the inclusion of speeches. A person who gives a speech decrying necrophilia might be forced to describe the acts involved in order to explain his or her reasoning. Currently, under 2b, this would require explicit authorisation by an authority, which is overly bureaucratic.”

[Astrobolt]

Tappe: “Banning media depictions is inherently illiberal. Simple drawings do not violate anyone’s rights or carry any risk of spreading disease.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

E Mortimer Wellesley. I concur with the representative for Astrobolt.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: This bans Twilight, Anita Blake, The Vampire Chronicles, etc. While the Dark Witch Meyer would not be much of a loss to the genre, that does seem overbroad.

[Wallenburg]

The structure of section 2 doesn't really make sense. As it is currently worded, you are making classes of inhabitants offenses. Don't you mean to make the acts they perform offenses?

[Wallenburg]

This, of course, also bans certain condoms and most lubricants, as well as a variety of accessories I don't need to get specific about that are made from animal or plant materials. These are not acceptable consequences for prohibiting such an international non-issue.

[Khazhkhovija]

It sounds like a good idea to ban such practices, it is no surprise to me that this seems to happen in your silly capitalist countries. We have no need for such idiotry in glorious Khazhkhovija. These things don't happen under good communist rule. Nevertheless, we support your proposal for the good of the international peace.